From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tomasz Olszak <tolszak(at)o2(dot)pl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem with accesing Oracle from plperlu functionwhen using remote pg client. |
Date: | 2009-03-16 20:00:46 |
Message-ID: | 36e682920903161300q5ef707afrd1a75ec25dc4c54@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Because that's what a respectable business does when a customer runs into a
> bug with software they sell.
It's not a bug, it's expected behavior. Not that I think it couldn't be
better handled.
I'm not trying to dig at this, but looking at it in terms of flexibility,
rather than us change the way we display a port in the ps-line because it
may break a couple hundred scripts, you seem to think it's more reasonable
for a company with a product utilized by millions of users, installed in
countless governments, and deployed in mission-critical areas, to risk
changing a fairly mature and well-tested behavior because it affects fewer
than 1% of its users per year; specifically, users who are trying to
interoperate with a competing database? If it were my business, it doesn't
seem like something I would put much effort into :)
Whether or not they actually will fix it, I don't know, but they surely
> won't if no-one complains them about it.
Wouldn't hurt :)
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-03-16 20:17:48 | typmod is always -1 |
Previous Message | Umar Farooq | 2009-03-16 19:43:22 | Fwd: PostgreSQL Memory Management |