On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I find the term "logical proof of it's correctness" too restrictive. It
> sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well
> for us.
Thank you.
> Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was
> important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly well.
You didn't respond to my explanation how the current Slony
implementation could improve and evolve using it. Are you missing
something? I am discussing this very issue with our own QA department,
and thus far, I think I have a majority of "would use a pg_trigger
backpatched PostgreSQL" vs. "No, I prefer a system that knows exactly
how it corrupted my system catalog".
> As far as TOAST, there is no question in my mind that TOAST development
> would happen the same way today as it did when we did it in 2001 --- we
> have a problem, how can we fix it.
Looking at what did happen back then and what happens in this case, I do
see a difference. There were concerns about the compression algorithm
used ... it still is today what was the first incarnation and nobody
ever bothered to even investigate if there could possibly be any better
thing. Do you think lzcompress is the best we can come up with? I don't!
So why is it still the thing used? Maybe it is good enough?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #