| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bit string functions |
| Date: | 2007-07-16 19:20:09 |
| Message-ID: | 87wsx0w3yu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:40:18AM -0700, TJ O'Donnell wrote:
>> I would like to make these a part of postgresql for others to use.
>> Is it more appropriate for these to be in contrib code
>> or part of the postgresql proper?
>> How can I contribute these?
>
> I would say just set up a project on pgfoundry.
I agree, though I think in the long term we do need a more complete set of
operators and functions in core. But we need consensus on which set people
find necessary and pgfoundry is a good place to do that.
I think the main guiding force will be which sets of operators and functions
become necessary to have operator classes for indexes.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-16 19:43:07 | Re: bit string functions |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-07-16 19:18:22 | Re: SSPI authentication |