Re: POC: rational number type (fractions)

From: Joe Nelson <joe(at)begriffs(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: POC: rational number type (fractions)
Date: 2020-07-03 06:33:17
Message-ID: 20200703063317.GC77322@begriffs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > I think we mark this as rejected.

Stephen Frost wrote:
> The more we reject new things, the less appealing our community ends
> up being.

For what it's worth, I'm not disheartened if my rational patch is
rejected. I can appreciate that postgres wants to avoid what might be
feature creep, especially if aspects of the implementation are arbitrary
or subject to change later on.

It might be more productive for me to investigate other ways to
contribute, like SQL:2016 features/conformance. That would increase our
harmony with other databases, rather than adding idiosyncrasies like a
new numeric type.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Khandekar 2020-07-03 06:41:23 Re: Inlining of couple of functions in pl_exec.c improves performance
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-07-03 06:17:45 Re: POC: rational number type (fractions)