On 10 January 2014 17:07, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 10 January 2014 15:48, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> On 8 January 2014 20:42, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS "some schema" AUTHORIZATION "some guy"; >>>> >>>> Hmm, given in 9.3 it was OK to have only DROP event triggers, I think >>>> it should be equally acceptable to have just CREATE, but without every >>>> option on CREATE. CREATE SCHEMA is easily the most complex thing here >>>> and would be the command/event to deprioritise if we had any issues >>>> getting this done/agreeing something for 9.4. >>> >>> I don't know that I agree with that, but I guess we can cross that >>> bridge when we come to it. >> >> We've come to it... >> >> You would prefer either everything or nothing?? On what grounds? > > I hardly think I need to justify that position.
Yeh, you do. Everybody does. > That's project policy > and always has been. When somebody implements 50% of a feature, or > worse yet 95% of a feature, it violates the POLA for users and doesn't > always subsequently get completed, leaving us with long-term warts > that are hard to eliminate. So why was project policy violated when we released 9.3 with only DROP event support? Surely that was a worse violation of POLA than my suggestion? It's not reasonable to do something yourself and then object when others suggest doing the same thing. After 3 years we need something useful. I think the "perfect being the enemy of the good" argument applies here after this length of time. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
