Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > Right. What I proposed would not have been terribly invasive or > difficult, certainly less so than what seems to be our direction by an > order of magnitude at least. I don't for a moment accept the assertion > that we can get a general solution for the same effort.
And at the same time, Greg's list of minimum requirements was far longer than what you proposed to do. We can *not* just implement those things one at a time with no thought towards what the full solution looks like --- at least not if we want the end result to look like it was intelligently designed, not merely accreted. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers