Larry Rosenman wrote: > >> UnixWare==SCO, but the Court fight has **NOTHING** to do with this issue. > >> > >> Does the PG core not care anymore about **QUALITY**? > >> > >> I'm NOT going to stand idly by as the SCO/IBM/RED HAT Legal issues are > >> used to > >> hurt PostgreSQL's quality. > >> > >> I'm NOT very pleased. > > > > SCO's threading support in a beta release is about number 2000 on my > > list of priorities right now. It will work in final --- that's all I > > can promise. If that isn't good enough, find someone else who wants to > > do the work for you. > > > > I am avoiding fixing the SCO port because it would ugilify the other > > ports --- we need to discuss that, not ram in a fix just to get it > > working on one platform --- that is quality. > > where is the discussion happening?
That's the problem --- I haven't even had time to collect the information and post it for comment yet. Quality is getting the right right, not necessary quickly. You fix was put on hold because it was complex (for other platforms) and other things had higher priority. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
