Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> One good argument for leaving this alone entirely is that this feature
>> was committed on November 3rd and this thread began on May 12th. If
>> there was ample time before feature freeze to question the design and
>> nobody did, then I'm not sure why we should disregard the freeze to
>> start whacking it around now, especially on the strength of one
>> complaint. It may be that after we get some field experience with
>> this the right thing to do will become clearer.
> I am not particularly convinced by this argument. As much as we hope
> that committers have worked with a variety of people with varying
> interests and that individuals who are concerned about such start
> testing just as soon as something is committed, that, frankly, isn't how
> the world really works, based on my observations, at least.
> The point of this period of time between feature freeze and actual
> release is, more-or-less, to figure out if the solution we've reached
> actually is a good one, and if not, to do something about it.
Sure, but part of the point of beta testing is to get user feedback.
I agree with Robert's point that major redesign of the feature on the
basis of one complaint isn't necessarily the way to go. Since the
existing behavior is already out in beta1, let's wait and see if anyone
else complains. We don't need to fix it Right This Instant.
Maybe add this to the list of open issues to reconsider mid-beta?
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
