On 08/21/2014 02:48 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Basically, I'm afraid that unilaterally renaming cube is going to break
>> enough applications that there will be more people who flat out don't
>> want this patch than there will be who get benefit from it, and we end
>> up voting to revert the feature altogether. If you'd like to take that
>> risk then feel free to charge full steam ahead, but don't say you were
>> not warned. And don't bother arguing that CUBE is reserved according to
>> the standard, because that will not make one damn bit of difference
>> to the people who will be unhappy.
> I have to respectfully disagree. Certainly, if there is some
> reasonable way to not have to change 'cube' then great. But the
> tonnage rule applies here: even considering compatibility issues, when
> considering the importance of standard SQL (and, I might add,
> exceptionally useful) syntax and a niche extension, 'cube' is going to
> have to get out of the way. There are view valid reasons to break
> compatibility but blocking standard syntax is definitely one of them.
>
I'm inclined to think that the audience for this is far larger than the
audience for the cube extension, which I have not once encountered in
the field.
But I guess we all have different experiences.
cheers
andrew
