On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, David Fetter wrote: > > Are you saying that there's stuff that if I don't put it in now will > impede our ability to add this to FTs later? >
I'm saying that it'd be a completely different implementation and that this one would get in the way and essentially have to be ripped out. No one is saying that this patch wouldn't work for the specific use-case that it set out to meet, and maybe it's unfair for us to consider possible use-cases beyond the patch's goal and the spec requirement, but that, IMO, is also one of the things that makes PG great. MVCC isn't necessary and isn't required by spec either. Thanks, Stephen
