Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, and more to the point, do I want to finish whatever I was doing in
>> that window? Fast-by-default is a nice hammer to swing, but one day
>> you'll pound your finger.
> I guess. I've pounded my finger enough time with the current default
> that I'd be willing to try a different size hammer. The scenario you
> describe has yet to occur in 10+ years of using the product, but
> obviously not everyone's experience will match on this point.
I think the ultimate basis for the way it's set up now is the mantra of
"be safe by default"; which I believe I've heard you repeating in other
contexts. Between that principle and the backwards-compatibility
hazards, I really don't think there's adequate justification for
changing this.
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
