Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 8/12/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > More seriously: the current state of affairs is that the
> > full-disjunction code exists as a pgfoundry project. If it's indeed the
> > second greatest thing since sliced bread, then I think we could assume
> > that people will find it and use it from pgfoundry.
>
> That goes back to assuming people not only know about pgfoundry, but
> are similarly willing to search it.
>
> > The question that's on the table is whether it needs to be in contrib right now.
> > I have not seen either a technical argument or popularity argument why it
> > ought to move into contrib.
>
> In addition to knowing that Tzahi has put a *very* significant amount
> of work into his research as well as this code over the past few
> months, I have to agree with several items stated by "Agent M".
>
> This is the *first* implementation of this concept in any database
> system, so there's not going to be anyone jumping up and down singing
> it's praises just yet. However, when people do get a chance to play
> with it, I believe we'll have a number of them saying how useful it
> is. There are several contrib modules still included in the system
> that aren't that heavily used... I don't see the harm in including
> this one for at least this release. If no one uses it, take it out
> for 8.3.
>
> IMHO, this is just a really cool piece of technology that provides
> functionality which can't be done any other way; why not give it a
> chance?
Our distribution is not a place to experiment with things. That's what
separate pgfoundry projects are for. The fact we have some unusual
things in /contrib is not a reason to add more.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
