On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I really do not think the PG core project should be held hostage by an > external and apparently not-really-maintained project. What if we > introduce some other difference in PG10 that breaks pgAdmin3? Are we > going to roll that change back? Are we sure that none exists already?
As a general rule, I don't agree that taking account of what will break external projects constitutes being "held hostage". I think that kind of hyperbole is unhelpful. How about we call it "trying not to gratuitously break popular third-party tools"? But in this case, I conceded the exact point that you are making here later on in the exact same email to which you are replying, so I'm a little mystified by the way you wrote this response. > In short, my > recollection is that we added them because it was easy to do at the time > and we didn't have the foresight to realize just how hard they would > become to get rid of and how much time they would suck up from people > arguing about them. I'm pretty sure we've spent more time arguing about them than it would have taken to maintain them from now until 2030, and I don't really understand why you're on the warpath to get rid of them. But I don't really care about it enough to keep arguing now that I've realized pgAdmin3 isn't going to work with PG 10 either way. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
