Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
>> On 10/28/14, 4:25 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> This one, however, is more a judgment of people and their
>>> practices rather than the feature itself. Color me unimpressed.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Having users sweat of comma placement in this day and age is
>> pretty stupid. I can understand why we wouldn't want to break
>> backwards compatibility, but I think it does us and our users a
>> disservice to dismiss the issue.
>
> I don't think anyone is just dismissing the issue. But it is
> certainly a judgment call as to whether the pros outweigh the
> cons, and I'm not seeing a clear majority of us thinking they do.
+1
My personal experience with products which allowed this (at least
in some circumstances) was that it occasionally saved me from an
"oops, ROLLBACK, retry" cycle. I feel there is some value to that.
It also seems probable that some people on such products maintain
their DDL scripts in this format to minimize such cycles in their
current environments, and for them the lack of such behavior in
PostgreSQL will cause some extra bumps on the road to conversion.
Smoothing the road for conversion to PostgreSQL also seems to have
some value.
I feel that these are both fairly small benefits, so in the absence
of any information on the costs of developing and maintaining this,
I don't have any opinion on whether it is worth it. I don't like
the scope of the initial proposal because that is not the place
where I noticed the feature in other products, and thus doubt that
it is the most important place to make the change, and think that
if we do it we had better have more consistency with it. If
someone offered a more comprehensive patch, I could look at it and
develop an opinion on whether the cost/benefit ratio looked like it
was worth it.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
