On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:25 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > 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.
Right. That is my only point. I am not looking to "dumb down" postgresql. I am saying that the "default" solution should be that simple. Autovacuum is the same way for example. The "default" solution works for 95% of the users out there without having to tweak any knob. The knobs are there *if* they break out of the 95%. > > >>> 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. Sorry I am in rare form today. I wasn't trying to be provocative at all but was trying to be succinctly clear on what my belief about this is. > > If the point was that we should not require anything more for > configuring a common, simple case then I'd agree. Right. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
