Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Comments?

Tough question.

First PL/Proxy. One objection against PL/Proxy is that it might interfere
with SQL-MED implementation. I don't think its the case because both
solve slightly different problems. SQL-MED brings remote tables "local"
(importing whole schemas and such). PL/Proxy allows remote calls
and load balancing/distribution. I think it might be even valuable to
use these two together (building on strengths of these two).

By the way, while reading SQL-MED standard I didn't find obvious
way of calling ad-hoc remote tables (as in Oracle's db links for
instance), only either creating remote tables or running in "passthrough"
mode. I guess I did miss something, I was only skimming through it.

As for citext I am less enthusiastic. While I understand the need for
case insensitivity, it feels hacky. Like something which screams to
be more general but fails to do so. And if citext, how about
say rawtext (locale-less text)? [1] utf8text (utf8 compilant text
available even if POSIX localle is used) and so on. ;)

I would still want citext to get into contrib, but my heart is strongest
with PL/Proxy here.

Regards,
Dawid

[1]: Actually I think it would be better to "upgrade" bytea into something
like locale-less, 8-byte, raw-text-alike. I mean, be able to do regex
queries, LIKE queries, etc on it. I sometimes miss that kind of functionality.
--
.................. ``The essence of real creativity is a certain
: *Dawid Kuroczko* : playfulness, a flitting from idea to idea
: qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com : without getting bogged down by fixated demands.''
`..................' Sherkaner Underhill, A Deepness in the Sky, V. Vinge