On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <pgm...@joh.to> wrote: > First of all, I have to apologize. Re-reading the email I sent out last > night, it does indeed feel a bit harsh and I can understand your reaction. > > At no point did I mean to belittle Kevin's efforts or the patch itself. I > was mostly looking for Kevin's input on how hard it would be to solve the > particular problem and whether it would be possible to do so for 9.3. > > While I feel like the problem I pointed out is a small caveat and should be > at least documented for 9.3, I think this patch has merits of its own even > if that problem never gets fixed, and I will continue to review this patch.
OK, no worries. I didn't really interpret your email as belittling; I just want to make sure this feature doesn't get feature-creeped to death. I think everyone, including Kevin, understands that the real-world applicability of v1 is going to be limited and many people will choose alternative techniques rather than relying on this new feature. But I also think that we'll never get to a really awesome, kick-ass feature unless we're willing to commit an initial version that isn't all that awesome or kick-ass. If I understand Kevin's goals correctly, the plan is to get this basic version committed for 9.3, and then to try to expand the capability during the 9.4 release cycle (and maybe 9.5, too, there's a lot of work to do here). I think that's a pretty sound plan. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
