Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Right. What I proposed would not have been terribly invasive or
> difficult, certainly less so than what seems to be our direction by an
> order of magnitude at least. I don't for a moment accept the assertion
> that we can get a general solution for the same effort.
And at the same time, Greg's list of minimum requirements was far
longer than what you proposed to do. We can *not* just implement
those things one at a time with no thought towards what the full
solution looks like --- at least not if we want the end result to
look like it was intelligently designed, not merely accreted.
regards, tom lane