On 10 January 2014 18:17, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> 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? > > Well, obviously I didn't think so at the time, or I would have > objected. I felt, and still feel, that implementing one kind of event > trigger (drop) does not necessarily require implementing another kind > (create). I think that's clearly different from implementing either > one for only some object types. > > "This event trigger will be called whenever an object is dropped" is a > reasonable contract with the user. "This other event trigger will be > called whenever an object is created, unless it happens to be a > schema" is much less reasonable. > > At least in my opinion.
In the fullness of time, I agree that is not a restriction we should maintain. Given that CREATE SCHEMA with multiple objects is less well used, its a reasonable restriction to accept for one release, if the alternative is to implement nothing at all of value. Especially since we are now in the third year of development of this set of features, it is time to reduce the scope to ensure delivery. There may be other ways to ensure something of value is added, this was just one suggestion. -- 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
