Josh Berkus <> writes:
> I think if the code is good enough, and we can avoid horrible non-standard 
> syntax extensions, they should go in.   We have to defend our title as "most 
> advanced database" and having stuff like Skyline first (before DB2 or MS) 
> goes a long way for that.

Well, whether it's horrible or not is in the eye of the beholder, but
this is certainly a non-standard syntax extension.

My questions about whether to adopt it have more to do with
cost/benefit.  I haven't seen the patch, but it sounds like it will be
large and messy; and it's for a feature that nobody ever heard of before,
let alone one that the community has developed a consensus it wants.
I'm not interested in adopting stuff just "because DB2 hasn't got it".

It's also worth noting that what we've got here is a large patch
developed, by students, completely outside our normal development
process; so the odds that it's going to be anywhere near acceptable are
low.  I think the last time we applied a patch that met that description
was the INTERSECT/EXCEPT patch in 1999 ... maybe you don't remember
what a fiasco that was, but I do.

Sorry to be a thrower of cold water, but I just don't see that this
comes anywhere near being something we should be eager to accept.

                        regards, tom lane

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

Reply via email to