Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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