I don't understand why you would want to remove a working feature. Even
if they are features which you do not like, why remove them? One of the
things about the PostgreSQL core team that troubles me is a fairly
arbitrary feature selection process.
It seems a feature has to be "liked" by someone for inclusion. I am
often taken by surprise by how you guys judge what the PostgreSQL
usership wants or "needs" based on your own perspective, and if someone
uses it differently, the reaction is fierce resistance.
The issue seems to be that there is some sort of feature phobia. Why
remove "ILIKE?" Why not just document an alternative for higher
performance? Why can't you guys allow features even though you don't
necessarily agree? Yes, absolutely, assure the quality and accuracy of
the feature, but just ease up on the resistance. Allow things even
though you don't see the usefulness. Keep features even though you don't
agree with them.
One of the benefits of open source is the inclusiveness of contribution.
The plurality of development. The ability to harness the experience and
work of people around the world. People with different objectives and
perspectives than yours.
In Open Source, the attitude should not be "do we want this feature?"
but "can we add/keep this without affecting anything else?" The first
argument is based on the assumption you know what everyone wants or
needs, which is preposterous, the second argument is based on how well
you know the PostgreSQL code and structure, which is a far more
reasonable position.
