> > I think we mark this as rejected.
Stephen Frost wrote:
> The more we reject new things, the less appealing our community ends
> up being.
For what it's worth, I'm not disheartened if my rational patch is
rejected. I can appreciate that postgres wants to avoid what might be
feature creep, especially if aspects of the implementation are arbitrary
or subject to change later on.
It might be more productive for me to investigate other ways to
contribute, like SQL:2016 features/conformance. That would increase our
harmony with other databases, rather than adding idiosyncrasies like a
new numeric type.
