On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 16:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > This was discussed on-list by 2 core team members, a committer and
> > myself, but I see no requirements change here. You even accepted the
> > invisible COPY optimization in your last post - why unpick that now?
> > Please forgive my tone, but I am lost for reasonable yet expressive
> > words.
>
> Do you think you are the only one who has rewritten a patch multiple
> times? We all have. The goal is to get the functionality into the
> system in the most seamless way possible. Considering the number of
> people who use PostgreSQL, if it takes use 10 tries, it is worth it
> considering the thousands of people who will use it. Would you have us
> include a sub-optimal patch and have thousands of people adjust to its
> non-optimal functionality? I am sure you would not. Perhaps a company
> would say, "Oh, just ship it", but we don't.
You're right.
Not like we've not been here before, eh?
[I'll look at the tech another day]
Best Regards, Simon Riggs