From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | AgentM <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |
Date: | 2006-08-13 03:31:00 |
Message-ID: | 14864.1155439860@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
AgentM <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> writes:
> You won't find anyone to vouch for it because this is the first
> implementation of full disjunctions in any database. That doesn't
> mean it isn't useful- it means no one is using it because it hasn't
> existed until now.
> This is the point where one needs to decide whether PostgreSQL is a
> copier of features from other databases or whether it can lead with a
> few unique features of its own.
Somewhere along here we need to remember that "most new ideas are bad".
More seriously: the current state of affairs is that the
full-disjunction code exists as a pgfoundry project. If it's indeed the
second greatest thing since sliced bread, then I think we could assume
that people will find it and use it from pgfoundry. The question that's
on the table is whether it needs to be in contrib right now. I have not
seen either a technical argument or popularity argument why it ought to
move into contrib.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-13 03:48:00 | Re: segfault on rollback |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-08-13 03:21:13 | Re: list archives not being updated? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-08-13 03:52:24 | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-13 03:05:12 | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |