>>> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> Well VLDB is like 2% of what we need. >> >> I am against removing an existing capability that is important to >> some users. We shouldn't need to debate the exact percentage of >> users that would be affected, or how to count them. > > Perhaps so, but I would hope you would support what Heikki and > others have been talking about as an option for replication. The 2% > shouldn't hold back the remaining 98%. Right. I was made a bit nervous by Joshua's comments, but somewhat reassured by his reference back to Heikki's comments. If we can make common cases simple to implement, that's great, as long as we don't lose functionality needed to cover the more complex cases. >>> Anything more and we are being difficult for the sake of being >>> difficult. Even in context, that came off as a bit user-hostile. It probably wasn't meant that way, but it sounded provocative to me. We do have better reasons than that for what I mentioned (in simplified form) here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00740.php If the point was that we should not require anything more for configuring a common, simple case then I'd agree. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
