[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RowStatus versus RowState
> From: Sharon Chisholm [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> The rowops draft says that the intention is to replace RowStatus with
> RowState, but that RowStatus is not being deprecated. I think this
> is a bit ambiguous.
It's worse than that. The current intention appears to be to have
RowState do only part of the job. Specifically, there has been, both in the
rowops draft and in the proposed row ops requirements, text that claims that
"state and fate" are separable entities. Really, all that has been done is
that half of the RowStatus values have been converted to "rowops" and the
timeout on notReady has been removed - presto chango!
What is probably more iomportant at this point is to make progress
on the requirements so that we can determine what problem, if any, we are
trying to solve. I still fail to see any point to rowops.