Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I felt that the more advanced features like not using 2x disk space were
> quite hard to implement, considering the other TODO items.  Marc agreed
> and was going to e-mail him to tell him that with proper user warning,
> we wanted the patch.

> Do people disagree?

Hmmm ... well ... I really don't want to restart that argument, but
I thought the plurality of opinion was that we didn't want it until
a more complete implementation could be provided.

Certainly I'm not enthused about shoehorning it in *after* we've
gone to feature-freeze mode.  If beta means anything around here,
it means "you missed the bus for adding features".

			regards, tom lane