On 10 March 2016 at 18:45, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:33 AM, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I tend to think we err toward this too much. This seems like development > > concerns trumping usability. Consider that anything someone took the > time > > to write and polish to make committable to core was obviously genuinely > > useful to them - and for every person capable of actually taking things > that > > far there are likely many more like myself who cannot but have > encountered > > the, albeit minor, usability annoyance that this kind of function seeks > to > > remove. > > Sure, an individual function like this has almost no negative impact. > On the other hand, working around its absence is also trivial. You > can create a wrapper function that does exactly this in a couple of > lines of SQL. In my opinion, saying that people should do that in > they need it has some advantages over shipping it to everyone. If you > don't have it and you want it, you can easily get it. But what if you > have it and you don't want it, for example because what you really > want is a minimal postgres installation? You can't take anything in > core back out again, or at least not easily. Everything about core is > expanding very randomly - code size, shared memory footprint, all of > it. If you think that has no downside for users, I respectfully > disagree. Not sure what y'all are discussing, but I should add that I would have committed this based solely upon Vik's +1. My objection was made, then overruled; that works because the objection wasn't "it won't work", only a preference so I'm happy. But I still don't know "meh" means. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
