Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > In fact, I tried to open a dialog with you on this issue several times, > > but when I got no reply, I had to remove PGXLOG. If we had continued > > discussion, we might have come up with the GUC compromise. > > Ya know, I'm sitting back and reading this, and other threads, and > assimilating what is being bantered about, and start to think that its > time to cut back on the gatekeepers ... > > Thomas implemented an option that he felt was useful, and that doesn't > break anything inside of the code ... he provided 2 methods of being able > to move the xlog's to another location (through command line and > environment variable, both of which are standard methods for doing such in > server software) ... but, because a small number of ppl "voted" that it > should go away, it went away ... > > You don't :vote: on stuff like this ... if you don't like it, you just > don't use it ... nobody is forcing you to do so. If you think there are > going to be idiots out here that aren't going to use it right, then you > document it appropriately, with *strong* wording against using it ...
I understand your thought of reevaluating how we decide things. However, if you don't accept voting as a valid way to determine if a patch is acceptible, what method do you suggest? I don't think we want to go down the road of saying that you can't vote "no" on a feature addition. We just rejected a patch today on LIMIT with UPDATE/DELETE via an informal vote, and I think it was a valid rejection. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
