2012/12/10, David Johnston <polobo@xxxxxxxxx>: > Please reply-to the list, not just myself. Sorry. > If it requires coding something to provide the user the desired flexibility > then whether or not such flexibility is wise or unwise is going to go into > said decision. So? > Also, since you are begging others to solve your own > problems Now, not just a problem of mine - but of many others as well, as I wrote. And I was "begging" already: "please, read carefully" (I meant: with understanding). > you are in many ways behaving as a child. When someone doesn't design his/her clothes on his own, doesn't sew boots, bake bread etc. - "behaves like a child"? > Especially with an Open > Source project like PostgreSQL adults are welcomed and encouraged to solve > their own problems by altering the source code and, in the spirit of > community, contributing it back to the project (contribution also means you > do not have to maintain your own custom version of the software). If I knew the "innards" of Postgres as good, as its present developers - maybe I could alter the code. But since I don't know them - I'm perfectly sure, that the ones, who created the code, are able to introduce such improvement during about 1/20 of the time, I had to spend trying to do it by myself. > Please do not take this as a personal affront; Yes, I took this as personal affront, because IT IS a personal affront. Do you really think, that your "please, do not take" is changing this? > It is easy to complain but apparently no one feels strongly enough to > either code a solution themselves or sponsor someone else to do so. >From what I see, the development is going on - then my conclusion is, that there are people "feeling strong enough" - and therefore I wanted to let them know, where they got wrong. > As I have not > seen any core coders respond I cannot be certain whether there are > underlying technical issues preventing this but there is at the least a > resource allocation concern since neither code donors nor those sponsored > by clients have made the time to implement this "simple feature". It may be > more productive, not being a core coder yourself, to simply ask why such a > feature has not been implemented given the apparent demand instead of > asserting (from ignorance) that such an implementation should be very > simple > to accomplish. The later approach (as well as your response to me - > personally) is much more confrontational and contrary (the direct reply at > least) to the posted etiquette for this community. No idea, what made you so upset with this "direct response" - just clicked "Reply", and forgot to check the recipient's address. Actually, the sender address should be pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx already. I've got a feeling, that all you have to say, is: "if this is the way it is, it means, that this is good, and shouldn't be changed". You are unable to explain, why - just the "common belief" etc. is your rationale (while it's not that "common" at all, as I wrote). You have no arguments against, but: "code it by yourself", "it must be perfect, when it works so", and so on. According to you the development can be stopped at this time, since everything is perfect. -- regards, Zbigniew -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
