Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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]
I know it is discouraging. I have felt it many times myself. However, I
have to keep my eye on the greater good that we are doing as a project,
and that my frustration is a small price to pay for the greater
usability we will give to our users.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073