On 02/13/2013 10:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 02/13/2013 09:13 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 13-Feb-2013, at 19:31, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
>> .
>>> I think its a good idea, the best idea even, but we still have no idea
>>> what the requirements are without a clear case for an external index.
>>> It could easily turn out that we invent a plausible API that's not
>>> actually of use because of requirements for locking. Whoever wants
>>> that can do the legwork.
>>>
>>> IIRC each of the new index types has required some changes to the
>>> generic APIs, which makes sense.
>>>
>>>
>> Does that mean we can add support for fractal tree indexes(or some
>> thing on similar lines) in the regular way by changing the generic APIs?
>>
>> IMO, we could design the fractal tree index and use it as the use
>> case for generic WAL record(I am kind of obsessed with the idea of
>> seeing fractal indexes being supported in Postgres).
>>
>
> If they are patented as Alexander says upthread, then surely the idea
> is dead in the water.
Isn't practically everything patented, with varying degrees of validity
and patent defensibility? Particularly the trick of "renewing" expired
patents by submitting tiny variations.
I realise that this general situation is different to knowing about a
specific patent applying to a specific proposed technique, particularly
regarding the USA's insane triple-damages-for-knowing-about-it thing,
and that a patent can well and truly block the adoption of a technique
into Pg core. It might not prevent its implementation as an out-of-tree
extension though, even if that requires some enhancements to core APIs
to make it possible.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
