On 06/14/2013 11:16 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/12/2013 02:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
What concerns me is we seem to be trying to make this "easy". It isn't
supposed to be easy. This is hard stuff. Smart people built it and it
takes a smart person to run it. When did it become a bad thing to be
something that smart people need to run?
1997, last I checked.
Our unofficial motto: "PostgreSQL: making very hard things possible, and
simple things hard."
It *is* hard. But that's because we've *made* it hard to understand and
manage, not because the problem is inherently hard. For example: can
you explain to me in 10 words or less how to monitor to see if archiving
is falling behind? I'll bet you can't, and that's because we've
provided no reliable way to do so.
Hey, I never said we shouldn't have a complete feature set. I agree with
you. IMO it should not have even been committed without the ability to
actually know what is going on and we have had it since (in theory) 8.1?
My primary concern is: Don't make it stupid.
I liked Claudio's comment, "More than easy, it should be obvious.".
It should be obvious from a review of the documentation how to manage
this stuff. It isn't, and worse even if we wrote the documentation it
still isn't because the feature is not complete.
With great power comes great responsibility.... :P
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
