On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So while I hear your objection to the "script in catalog" idea Stephen,
>> I think we should move forward. We don't have the luxury of only
>> applying patches where no compromise has to be made, where everyone is
>> fully happy with the solution we find as a community.
>
> You've got that backwards. We do have the luxury of rejecting new
> features until people are generally satisfied that the basic design is
> right. There's no overlord decreeing that this must be in 9.4.
I strongly agree. PostgreSQL has succeeded because we try not to do
things at all until we're sure we know how to do them right.
Sometimes we lag behind in features or performance as a result of that
- but the upside is that when we say something now works, it does.
Moreover, it means that the number of bad design decisions we're left
to support off into eternity is comparatively small. Those things are
of great benefit to our community.
I can certainly understand Dimitri's frustration, in that he's written
several versions of this patch and none have been accepted. But what
that means is that none of those approaches have consensus behind
them, which is another way of saying that, as a community, we really
*don't* know the best way to solve this problem, and our community
policy in that situation is to take no action until we do. I've
certainly had my own share of disappointments about patches I've
written which I believed, and in some cases still believe, to be
really good work, and I'd really like to be able to force them
through. But that's not how it works.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company