Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, whether it's horrible or not is in the eye of the beholder, but >> this is certainly a non-standard syntax extension.
> Being non-standard should not be the only reason to reject a worthwhile > feature. No, but being non-standard is certainly an indicator that the feature may not be of widespread interest --- if it were, the SQL committee would've gotten around to including it; seems they've managed to include everything but the kitchen sink already. Add to that the complete lack of any previous demand for the feature, and you have to wonder where the market is. > The fact that several > different groups have been mentioned to be working on this feature would > indicate that it is worth considering. It looks to me more like someone published a paper that caught the attention of a few profs looking for term projects for their students. Now maybe it really is the best idea since sliced bread and will be seen in the next SQL spec edition, but color me skeptical. It seems to me to be a very narrow-usage extension, as opposed to (eg) multi-input aggregates or WITH/RECURSIVE, which provide general mechanisms applicable to a multitude of problems. Now even so it would be fine if the implementation were similarly narrow in scope, but the published description of the patch mentions a large chunk of additional executor mechanisms. If we're going to be adding as much code as that, I'd like to see a wider scope of usage for it. Basically, this patch isn't sounding like it has a reasonable bang-to-the-buck ratio ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend