I don't understand why you would want to remove a working feature. Even if they are features which you do not like, why remove them? One of the things about the PostgreSQL core team that troubles me is a fairly arbitrary feature selection process.

It seems a feature has to be "liked" by someone for inclusion. I am often taken by surprise by how you guys judge what the PostgreSQL usership wants or "needs" based on your own perspective, and if someone uses it differently, the reaction is fierce resistance.

The issue seems to be that there is some sort of feature phobia. Why remove "ILIKE?" Why not just document an alternative for higher performance? Why can't you guys allow features even though you don't necessarily agree? Yes, absolutely, assure the quality and accuracy of the feature, but just ease up on the resistance. Allow things even though you don't see the usefulness. Keep features even though you don't agree with them.

One of the benefits of open source is the inclusiveness of contribution. The plurality of development. The ability to harness the experience and work of people around the world. People with different objectives and perspectives than yours.

In Open Source, the attitude should not be "do we want this feature?" but "can we add/keep this without affecting anything else?" The first argument is based on the assumption you know what everyone wants or needs, which is preposterous, the second argument is based on how well you know the PostgreSQL code and structure, which is a far more reasonable position.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
   (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to