I write here the answer of Jerry Stuckle [1] because it looks me
interesting and enough logical.
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.mysql/browse_thread/thread/89557609239a995e
-----------------------
Quite frankly, I don't care that PostGres has user-defined types.
They
restrict you to a single database, when others might be better for
other reasons.
And yes, I think other things should have been proposed to the SQL
standards committee. It doesn't take that long to get a good proposal
into the standards. No, it isn't immediate. But if there is a case
to
be made for it, then the committee will act.
Then all databases get the feature, eventually.
As I said. Do it the right way. Submit your proposal. If you have a
case, it will be added to the SQL standard. If not, then it's not
that
important.
-----------------------
On Jul 14, 9:34 am, klep...@svana.org (Martijn van Oosterhout) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:04:33AM -0700, Kless wrote:
> > I am not in favor of adding more database-specific types to ANY
> > database
> > - and I think PostGres doing it was a mistake.
>
> So you think that adding full text indexing, gist/gin indexes, text,
> geometric types should have waited until the SQL standard specified
> them? With that kind of thinking we'd still be in the database stone
> age.
>
> One of postgresql's greatest strengths is user-defined types, lets use
> it.
>
> > If there is a demand for it, then it should be added to the SQL
> > standard. That is the correct way to propose a change. That's why
> > there are standards.
>
> You are ofcourse free to propose it to them, but the question is if
> they'd listen...
>
