David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it were just me laying out the boundary, I'd say that anything that
> changes the grammar of SQL--for example, adding FULL
> DISJUNCTION--can't really be a viable trial outside the main
> distribution channels and deserves a couple of versions' stay in one
> of those channels if it passes the scrutiny of -hackers.

Well, one of the things I don't especially like about this patch is
exactly that it doesn't change the grammar (it can't really, as a
contrib module :-().  There's no way that it would get into core without
a different API and probably a complete code rewrite.  So what we've got
here, at bottom, is a toy prototype that might serve for people to
experiment with the feature and find out whether it's useful or not ---
but it's not code that could be mainstream with just a bit more

Perhaps contrib/dblink is a useful comparison point; that code will
never get into core in its current form either.  The reason it's in
contrib is that the use-case is so compelling that we're willing to
accept it even though we all know it's pretty klugy.

The case for FD seems to be basically "if you build it they will come",
and I'm sorry but I'm not sold.  If it gets some traction as a pgfoundry
project then we could look at doing a second-generation implementation
in a form that could actually get into core... but until then I'm
inclined to see it as an academic curiosity.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to