Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes:
> On 2/26/15 4:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Oh, I didn't realize there weren't commands to change the LCO. Without
>>> at least SQL syntax for LCO, I don't see why we'd take it; this sounds
>>> more like a WIP patch.
>> The reason for doing it this way is that changing the underlying
>> architecture is really hard, without having to bear an endless hackers
>> bike shed discussion about the best userland syntax to use. It seems a
>> much better approach to do the actually difficult part first, then let
>> the rest to be argued to death by others and let those others do the
>> easy part (and take all the credit along with that); that way, that
>> discussion does not kill other possible uses that the new architecture
>> allows.
> +1. This patch is already several years old; lets not delay it further.
I tend to agree with that, but how are we going to test things if there's
no mechanism to create a table in which the orderings are different?
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
