On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:20 +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that > > to me, though many have commented on the need for the current patch. As > > mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional > > feedback and the result was very clear. > > I don't have a technical opinion about this problem yet as I haven't > tested HS+SR yet but I'm not sure it's a good idea to base technical > decisions and priorities on user polls (I'm pretty sure most of them > don't use HS+SR as much as Heikki these days). > If you ask people what they want in their future cars, they won't > answer they want wheels or an engine: it's something obvious for them. > AFAICS (but I might be wrong), you asked this question to people who > are interested in HS+SR but don't have any idea of what it's like to > use HS+SR daily with or without this limitation.
Well, you are correct that a larger group of users *could* have avoided an obvious and important issue. Though if you deploy that argument it can be applied both ways: Heikki may also be missing an obvious and important issue. Where does that leave us? I am not against putting both into this release. If I am forced to choose just one, I've at least given reasons why that should be so. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers