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

Reply via email to