On 10 January 2014 17:07, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 10 January 2014 15:48, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8 January 2014 20:42, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS "some schema" AUTHORIZATION "some guy";
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, given in 9.3 it was OK to have only DROP event triggers, I think
>>>> it should be equally acceptable to have just CREATE, but without every
>>>> option on CREATE. CREATE SCHEMA is easily the most complex thing here
>>>> and would be the command/event to deprioritise if we had any issues
>>>> getting this done/agreeing something for 9.4.
>>>
>>> I don't know that I agree with that, but I guess we can cross that
>>> bridge when we come to it.
>>
>> We've come to it...
>>
>> You would prefer either everything or nothing?? On what grounds?
>
> I hardly think I need to justify that position.
Yeh, you do. Everybody does.
> That's project policy
> and always has been. When somebody implements 50% of a feature, or
> worse yet 95% of a feature, it violates the POLA for users and doesn't
> always subsequently get completed, leaving us with long-term warts
> that are hard to eliminate.
So why was project policy violated when we released 9.3 with only DROP
event support? Surely that was a worse violation of POLA than my
suggestion?
It's not reasonable to do something yourself and then object when
others suggest doing the same thing.
After 3 years we need something useful. I think the "perfect being the
enemy of the good" argument applies here after this length of time.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services