Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm guessing you did not read
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18723.1401734...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Argh, sorry, I saw that go by and it went past my eyes but obviously I
> didn't really absorb it. I guess we could do it that way. But it
> seems like quite a hassle to me; I think we're going to continue to
> get complaints here until this is Easy. And if it can't be made Easy,
> then we're going to continue to get complaints forever.
Well, my vision of it is that it *is* easy, if you're using the tool
(or, perhaps, one of several tools), and you have a case that doesn't
really require careful semantic review. But trying to build this sort
of thing into the backend is the wrong approach: it's going to lead
to unpleasant compromises and/or surprises. And we'd still have to
build that tool someday.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
