On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 14:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> You're just putting the hard decision onto packagers, who have no more > >> knowledge than you do about what their users want, and (probably) > >> considerably less understanding of the benefits/risks of some new > >> configure option they happen to notice.
At this point I don't know that any of this is going anywhere. I have presented what I think is a reasonable compromise to accept the feature. A compile-time option which was as designed all along with a flag called experimental. Which will be vastly easier to get people to test over time versus having to run a fork. I am for including this patch. I believe it is worth the risk. Sincerely, 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
