Re: Postgresql Materialized views

Joshua D. Drake wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="mid:20080112105920.561e97d4@commandprompt.com" type="cite"><blockquote
type="cite"><prewrap="">Unless you are going to *pay* for it - you do realize that the best
 
way to get it implemented, would be to open up the source code, and
give it a try yourself?

If it was so easy, and such a clear win, I think one of the very 
competent people using PostgreSQL today would have already done it?   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">No actually, and
yourreply is offensive. There are a lot of things
 
PostgreSQL is missing that are "easy" and a clear win, yet people still
don't do them. A simple one is the ridiculous usage of pg_dump and
pg_dumpall. Or that we can't use pg_restore to use the plain text
backup.

I think his email was very well written and a simple request of
discussion of alternatives as well as future plans. </pre></blockquote> Offensive is relative. I find it offensive when
peopledemand things on one of the many mailing lists I read without providing anything to the community.<br /><br /> I
didn'trealize the original poster did not fit this class of person. For this, I apologize. As for tone - I don't see
anythingtechnically wrong with my response. The best way to get something done *is* to pay for it, or do it yourself.
It'sa tried and true practice in the open source community. Also, I do not think it is as easy as you say - but feel
freeto continue the discussion and prove how idiotic I am for calling the problem "not easy". :-)<br /><br />
Cheers,<br/> mark<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
 
Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a>
</pre>