| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "Kless" <jonas(dot)esp(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Proposal - UUID data type |
| Date: | 2008-07-14 19:34:15 |
| Message-ID: | 849.1216064055@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
>> I'm sure one or two examples must exist, but I cannot think of any. Every
>> enhancement I can think of that eventually made it into a standard, was first
>> implemented within a popular product, and then demanded as a standard to be
>> applied to all other products.
> C99? SMTP? NTP?
> It tends to be important for network protocols since there's no gain in having
> non-interoperable protocols.
Actually, the IETF's mantra has always been "rough consensus and running
code" (cf http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2031.html) Network protocols
don't get standardized in advance of a working prototype, either.
(No, I take that back: there were some that did. Ever heard of OSI?)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-07-14 19:38:46 | Re: Summary of some postgres portability issues |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-14 19:09:55 | Re: Fwd: Proposal - UUID data type |