Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 8/12/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > More seriously: the current state of affairs is that the > > full-disjunction code exists as a pgfoundry project. If it's indeed the > > second greatest thing since sliced bread, then I think we could assume > > that people will find it and use it from pgfoundry. > > That goes back to assuming people not only know about pgfoundry, but > are similarly willing to search it. > > > The question that's on the table is whether it needs to be in contrib right > > now. > > I have not seen either a technical argument or popularity argument why it > > ought to move into contrib. > > In addition to knowing that Tzahi has put a *very* significant amount > of work into his research as well as this code over the past few > months, I have to agree with several items stated by "Agent M". > > This is the *first* implementation of this concept in any database > system, so there's not going to be anyone jumping up and down singing > it's praises just yet. However, when people do get a chance to play > with it, I believe we'll have a number of them saying how useful it > is. There are several contrib modules still included in the system > that aren't that heavily used... I don't see the harm in including > this one for at least this release. If no one uses it, take it out > for 8.3. > > IMHO, this is just a really cool piece of technology that provides > functionality which can't be done any other way; why not give it a > chance?
Our distribution is not a place to experiment with things. That's what separate pgfoundry projects are for. The fact we have some unusual things in /contrib is not a reason to add more. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq