Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Also, you mentioned Full Disjunctions, which doesn't look like it will
> > be in 8.2, and because it is so unusual, you would have to explain why
> > it is so great, and given the lack of community people saying it is
> > great, I am unsure if it even should be mentioned if it is on pgfoundry.
>
> This one I do not agree with. We don't have to explain it beyond a
> single sentence, people can do their own research on if they need it.
> This is PR :). Full Disjunctions falls directly into the Most Advanced
> Open Source Database arena (and considering Ingres is open source we
> have to fight for this).
>
> Frankly there are several projects on pgFoundry that need some advocacy
> on this release including:
>
> Full Disjunctions
> .Npgsql (if it hits 1.0)
> Orafce
>
> Possibly some reiteration around:
>
> pljava
> pgpool
Agreed, but we better mention it is on pgfoundry rather than in the main
code.
> These are all items that greatly enhance the usability and functionality
> argument.
>
>
> >
> > Also, we don't have some items in CVS like bitmapped indexes, so those
> > might need to be removed as the feature list solidifies.
> >
>
> I thought bitmapped indexes had been reviewed? eek...
We don't even have a final patch for it. Because we are dealing with
other patches we aren't pushing on the submitter at this time.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
