Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinJ6OP=uBueXSYdA4s_pizBfnfaaMXvJDm2i4va@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases) (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested
in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > What I know no body is working on SQL/OLB ISO/IEC 9075-10 now. > > I proposed a 3 years ago a support of methods, but without success. > This propose was rejected. There isn't a real interest to implement it > from commiters. And I have to say - users doesn't request it too. And > there are a few issues with compatibility. It seems to me it's a bit unfair to say "there isn't real interest to implement it from committers". Plenty of features get implemented that no committer particularly cares about, because a number of committers - including me - spend a good deal of time reviewing and committing patches written by other people which they never would have written themselves. It's true that patches sometimes get swatted down because they are judged to be insufficiently useful or badly design or because they create compatibility breaks, but that's not the same as "not interested", which to me implies a sort of purely arbitrary rejection that I try hard to avoid. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: