On 18/11/2011, at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Royce Ausburn <royce...@inomial.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the discussion so far all. Would it be worthwhile to make >> another patch that addresses the points from Yeb's reviews? It's not >> sounding like this unremovable tuple count is something that postgres wants, >> but I'm happy to keep the patch up to scratch if we're still not sure. > > One question to ask yourself at this point in the process is whether > *you* still think the feature is useful. I'm fairly persuaded by > Tom's point that the value monitored by this patch will change so > quickly that it won't be useful to have VACUUM store it; it'll be > obsolete by the time you look at the numbers. If you are also > persuaded by that argument, then clearly it's time to throw in the > towel! > > But let's suppose you're NOT persuaded by that argument and you still > want the feature. In that case, don't just wait for someone else to > stick up for the feature; tell us why you still think it's a good > idea. Make a case for what you want. People here are usually > receptive to good ideas, well-presented.
Okay - thanks Robert. I think I'll drop it. Now that I know what to look for in this situation, the changes this patch includes aren't of value to me. That's a pretty good indicator that it's probably not valuable to anyone else. I've changed the status of the patch to rejected in the commit fest. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
