On Fri, 19 May 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
> > > 3) Returning of sub-class fields. Any ODBMS *must* do this by
> > > definition. If it doesn't, it isn't an ODBMS.
> >
> > Chris, you have a bad habit of defining away the problem. Not
> > everyone is convinced upon this point,
>
> You claimed to be convinced in the previous discussions. Who exactly
> wasn't?
>
> > and your assertions that
> > there was consensus don't help your cause.
>
> I must admit to frustration here. Will I be issued with a certificate or
> something when an arbitrator declares "consensus". I can't fathom how
> decisions are made around here, but you seem to be as close to a leader
> as I'll find. On the sub-class returning issue you declared that you
> understood that it was "good for a certain class of problems" or some
> such.
We have a list archive ... just to try and help out here, you
might want to try posting URLs to show quotes ... to back things up ...
> My take on the previous discussions were that a great number of
> objections were resolved. Am I supposed to just sit on my bum waiting
> for people who havn't even used an ODBMS to argue for a few years? I'm
> quite willing to talk this all through again but it needs to reach
> closure at some point.
Nope, my take on things is that your patch does things that would break
existing functionality, which won't be permitted without one helluva good
explanation ...
> This is the third time I've submitted the patch and you examined it in
> detail last two times. This is just a post-7.0 merge and I was expecting
> it put in CVS now that 7.0 is done.
That won't happen ... v7.1, if you can get agreement, but not in the
current CVS tree ...