Re: postponing some large patches to 9.2

pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com (Jeff Davis) writes:
> On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 06:57 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> > - Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
>> > first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
>> > that had no open TODO items was posted yesterday, three-quarters of
>> > the way through that last CommitFest. Some good review has been done.
>> > While more is probably needed, I think we should feel good about
>> > what's been accomplished and mark this one Returned with Feedback.
>>
>> I don't agree w/ punting Range Types. Range Types were discussed as far
>> back as the 2010 developer meeting, were discussed quite a bit again
>> starting in October and throughout the fall, and Jeff has regularly
>> been posting updates to it. Given how thorough Jeff is, my feeling is
>> that this patch is more than ready for beta.
>
> I appreciate the sentiment, but in addition to some cleanup, any patch
> like this at least requires some discussion. It's a language change
> we'll be supporting for a long time.
>
> At minimum, we're a couple hundred emails shy of a real consensus on the
> naming ;)

It's more than a bit sad... The RangeType change has the massive merit
of enabling some substantial development changes, where we can get rid
of whole classes of comparison clauses, and hopefully whole classes of
range errors. That was my favorite would-be feature for 9.1.

It'll take some time to get code changes into systems to use this; the
sooner the feature's in a deployable version of Postgres, the earlier
that kind of thing may start.
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "gmail.com")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/internet.html
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
-- Noam Chomsky