On 18/11/2011, at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Royce Ausburn <royce.ml@inomial.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the discussion so far all. Would it be worthwhile to make another patch that addresses the points from
Yeb'sreviews? It's not sounding like this unremovable tuple count is something that postgres wants, but I'm happy to
keepthe patch up to scratch if we're still not sure.
>
> One question to ask yourself at this point in the process is whether
> *you* still think the feature is useful. I'm fairly persuaded by
> Tom's point that the value monitored by this patch will change so
> quickly that it won't be useful to have VACUUM store it; it'll be
> obsolete by the time you look at the numbers. If you are also
> persuaded by that argument, then clearly it's time to throw in the
> towel!
>
> But let's suppose you're NOT persuaded by that argument and you still
> want the feature. In that case, don't just wait for someone else to
> stick up for the feature; tell us why you still think it's a good
> idea. Make a case for what you want. People here are usually
> receptive to good ideas, well-presented.
Okay - thanks Robert. I think I'll drop it. Now that I know what to look for in this situation, the changes this
patchincludes aren't of value to me. That's a pretty good indicator that it's probably not valuable to anyone else.
I've changed the status of the patch to rejected in the commit fest.