Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:

>Ann W. Harrison wrote:
>
>
>>There was discussion and agreement to change the behavior
>>of naturally updateable views with triggers on the development
>>list around 30 July 2003 and again in November 2003. Whether
>>I was on vacation, asleep, or just stupid, I missed it.
>>
>>Dmitry and others found dozens of cases where views were
>>marginally updateable, unreliably updateable, crashed the
>>system etc. Dmitry's message is below.
>>
>>
>
>Ann:
>
>In our short FB history, controversial changes have been discussed and
>tested in the list. Incompatible changes with previous versions (where the
>old versions were considered at fault) were done after general agreement.
>It's almost impossible that "general" equals "unanimous".
>

So, you are arguing that a single keyword on future view definitions is
too hgih a price to pay to keep thousands of existing production systems
working? Or are you arguing that an implicit decision once made cannot
be reviewed?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]