Greg Stark wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > I'm also not prepared to push a large and unstable feature into the tree > > on the hope that it will get fixed. > > I didn't have the impression it had any known problems, Simon and > others spent a lot of time testing it already. The improvements Heikki > was asking for were simplifications or cleanup type changes and every > time he asked for something Simon had it done within a day or two. > > The problem is I think this will *always* be a "large unstable > feature" just because it's large. If we aren't happy having it in the > tree for alpha releases then there's no circumstance we'll ever be > happy having it in a real release. I think it's a *lot* better having > it in the alpha releases when if we find problems we can revert it or > fix the problems than dropping it at the last second before the betas > when it has to be perfect and there's no second chances.
By that logic we would never have accepted large patches, but we have, often. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
