Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It sucks that patches are posted and no action is taken on them for > > months. I agree with that. > > This particular patch was originally posted during the 8.1 feature > freeze window (2005-09-29), so it was doomed to a certain amount of > languishing on the to-worry-about-later list in any case. We should > have gotten around to reviewing it sooner than we did (the followup > discussion was around 2006-06-14), but there was still plenty of time > at that point to rework it per the discussion and get it into 8.2. > > As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once, > and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been > forthcoming.
Yea, that pretty much sums it up. Based on the number of people who wanted it applied, I think we need to have a discussion like this. I can easily go with rejecting it, but I think the discussion is needed to be fair to the patch author. So, what do we want to do with this? Where did we say we didn't want SELECT? I never remember that being discussed. I remember us saying we never wanted SELECT or VIEWs because it was going to be slow, but once the SELECT idea came up, I think we decided we wanted that, and views could be built on top of that. I certainly never remember us saying we didn't want SELECT but wanted views. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
