| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | AgentM <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |
| Date: | 2006-08-13 16:50:48 |
| Message-ID: | 18918.1155487848@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't see the harm in including this one for at least this release.
> If no one uses it, take it out for 8.3.
Once stuff is in contrib, it tends to stay there. The above argument
is completely disingenuous --- we'd have to have the same argument
again at the end of the 8.3 cycle, only then we'd already have expended
a development cycle's worth of maintenance work on a quite-large module.
There is quite a lot of stuff in contrib that the core committee
wouldn't accept nowadays ... it got in when there wasn't any alternative
such as pgfoundry. These days I think something has to be pretty
clearly useful to a wide variety of people before we'll accept it into
contrib, and I'm not seeing that that case has been made for
fulldisjunctions. FD may be cool, but coolness isn't a (sufficient)
criterion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-13 16:54:36 | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-13 16:41:34 | Re: segfault on rollback |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-13 16:54:36 | Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-13 16:38:12 | Re: better support of out parameters in plperl |