Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So, when we review patches, we shouldn't be turning up our noses at > > imperfect solutions if the solution meets needs of our users. > > I think our standards have gone up over the years, and properly so. > The fact that we put in hacks some years ago doesn't mean that we > still should. > > I don't really mind hacks^H^H^Hpartial solutions that are clean subsets > of the functionality we want to have eventually. I do object to hacks > that will create a backwards-compatibility problem when we want to do it > right.
I absolutely agree on that. If we at some point want to have a given feature, we need to avoid backward compatibility problems. As for features that are independent, don't break anything, just add-on's that can happily swim around in contrib (but stay out of the deep water), we might want to become a bit more relaxed again. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
