Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, when we review patches, we shouldn't be turning up our noses at
> > imperfect solutions if the solution meets needs of our users.
>
> I think our standards have gone up over the years, and properly so.
> The fact that we put i
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't really mind hacks^H^H^Hpartial solutions that are clean subsets
> of the functionality we want to have eventually. I do object to hacks
> that will create a backwards-compatibility problem when we want to do it
> right.
If the backwards compatabili
I think PostgreSQL's standards are a bit too high. From my point of view, the team as a whole has no desire to build the worlds best open source database from the point of view of functionality. They seem more interested in the writing the open source database with the world's most aesthetically pl
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, when we review patches, we shouldn't be turning up our noses at
> imperfect solutions if the solution meets needs of our users.
I think our standards have gone up over the years, and properly so.
The fact that we put in hacks some years ago doesn't
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 June 2002 19:21
> To: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: [HACKERS] Why I like partial solutions
>
>
> If we want to grow PostgreSQL, we need to meet users needs,
> even if th
I find myself repeatedly arguing for partial solutions, and having to
struggle with other developers who feel these solutions are hacks.
Let me explain why I like these hacks.
When we have a feature that users want, often we can't get it
implemented promptly in a clean way. It can take several r
