On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:53 -0500, Andrew Dunstan 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%. So far, everything has been couched in terms of remove the way it is now and put in its place something "better". Heikki and Josh have said that or similar, as has Robert Haas on another thread, and Fujii-san specifically said "get rid of" the existing functionality. I am completely against the removal of an existing capability that is critically important to many users. If we can add new functionality that is a nice-to-have for a large number of people without removing a feature that is critical to many users, bring it on. If we can't do that, then I would oppose. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
