> He already did over a year and half research on the subject, wrote the
> code for it, published a paper on it, and offered it to the community.
> Why would he choose to spend more time getting beaten up for
> something that's already behind him?
If he is not willing to proceed with public debate, I fail to see the
purpose in doing the work at all.
> Perhaps you don't recall.. but his design and research was far more
> than almost all other PostgreSQL features. The only one longer was
> perhaps the HOT design.
Hmmm and look at HOT. That would be an example of how it *should* be
done. HOT has been a constant influx of WIP patches and discussion *to
the community* and thusly to rounding out nicely to be a great feature.
Full Disjunctions did not do that.
>> For the record, I like the idea of full disjunctions but they must past
>> quality muster to be included in the community.
>
> Again, he offered to fix anything anyone had issues with... but people
Then why didn't he fix them? There were specific problems people had.
> were too busy whining about the feature itself than to provide sound
> advice for moving forward.
>
Guess we will have to agree to disagree. That is not my recollection of
the events on any level.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
