Thread: Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib
Hi, I wish to add the fulldisjunctions function to the contrib. With the help of Jonah, we (or rather he :) created a patch with regression tests. The function is finished programmatically but still a little more code documentation touches and improved error messages are needed. All the rest was extensively tested. Attached is the patch. Works great. Just compiled from a fresh cvs which i patched with the attached diff. ran the fulldijsjunction.sql in the share/contrib/fulldisjunction and let it run and it works great. 10x. -- Regards, Tzahi. -- Tzahi Fadida Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info WARNING TO SPAMMERS: see at http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html
Attachment
Sorry, we did not get enough feedback to include this in 8.2. Please add it to pgfoundry and let's see how it goes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tzahi Fadida wrote: > Hi, > I wish to add the fulldisjunctions function to the contrib. > With the help of Jonah, we (or rather he :) created a patch with > regression tests. The function is finished programmatically but > still a little more code documentation touches and improved error messages > are needed. All the rest was extensively tested. > > Attached is the patch. > > Works great. Just compiled from a fresh cvs which i patched with the > attached diff. ran the fulldijsjunction.sql in the > share/contrib/fulldisjunction and let it run and it works great. > 10x. > > -- > Regards, > ????????Tzahi. > -- > Tzahi Fadida > Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info > WARNING TO SPAMMERS: ?see at > http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On 8/25/06, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Sorry, we did not get enough feedback to include this in 8.2. Please > add it to pgfoundry and let's see how it goes. Yep... it's too bad. A new feature no other database has now goes to it's final resting place on pgfoundry. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 8/25/06, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> Sorry, we did not get enough feedback to include this in 8.2. Please >> add it to pgfoundry and let's see how it goes. > > Yep... it's too bad. A new feature no other database has now goes to > it's final resting place on pgfoundry. > Jonah, this is inaccurate, irresponsible and insulting to those of us who spend time maintaining pgfoundry. It is not a graveyard. Plenty of stuff outside the core gets included in packaged distributions - just see for example what goes into the Windows distro, or the packages that CP distributes. The implication of your statement is that anything not accepted into the core is automatically somehow considered unworthy. Please refer to Tom's recent remarks about playing on extensibility as one of our strengths. My impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that proper full disjunction support would include grammar support, in which case contrib is not where it should belong anyway. If that's so, then the next step would be for somebody to pick up the work that Tzahi has done and take it the rest of the way. That would be a worth goal for 8.3. cheers andrew
>
> this is inaccurate, irresponsible and insulting to those of us who spend
> time maintaining pgfoundry. It is not a graveyard. Plenty of stuff
> outside the core gets included in packaged distributions - just see for
> example what goes into the Windows distro, or the packages that CP
> distributes.
Jonah,
Your attitude has been lacking about this whole thing, as has a lot of
other people. PgFoundry is the official sub project site for PostgreSQL.
It is not a graveyard, projects on PgFoundry should receive full
advocacy and promotion about their abilities and their linkage PostgreSQL.
If we spent half as much time promoting and helping the various sub
project succeed as we doing whining on this list, we would be far more
dominant in the industry then we are.
I am sick of all the moaning that goes on, with this list about -- "oh
please, we need this in core". It is a crock we have a huge repository
of PostgreSQL projects that are not in core and this attitude is
detrimental and negative to all who are involved with those projects.
When full disjunctons is ready, I am sure it will be considered for
core. It currently is not and pgFoundry is the perfect place for until
until then.
We can still promote and announce we have a full disjunctions
implementation, just as we can advertise we have full text indexing.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
On 8/26/06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > this is inaccurate, irresponsible and insulting to those of us who spend > time maintaining pgfoundry. Andrew, I'm sorry if it sounded that way... it wasn't meant as such. > It is not a graveyard. Plenty of stuff outside the core gets included in > packaged distributions - just see for example what goes into the Windows > distro, or the packages that CP distributes. I'm not saying that *everything* on pgfoundry is junk... but I can start naming dead projects if you'd like. It's like SourceForge before SourceForge jumped the shark... now 90% of SourceForge is either projects dead-and-gone or which hadn't even started. It's almost not even worth the time to search SF.net anymore. I believe that's the direction pgfoundry is headed. Not because of poor management or administration... just that when you have a large number of projects, the majority of which are dead or not even worth viewing, it takes the credibility of the site down as a whole. Look at gborg... there was some good stuff there and there still is; if you already know about it. Both gborg and pgfoundry have projects on there won't even work with a current version of PostgreSQL. Outside of all us hackers... how many people actually use pgfoundry? Does anyone have the stats? Has anyone polled users? How many of the users are newbies and how many are already familiar with PostgreSQL? If we don't have these basic answers, continuing to praise pgfoundry as the home for all-things-PostgreSQL is pointless. > The implication of your statement is that anything not accepted into the > core is automatically somehow considered unworthy. Not at all. I'm referring to this case in particular. > Please refer to Tom's recent remarks about playing on extensibility > as one of our strengths. I never said it wasn't... extensibility is, IMHO, our *core* strength. However, I don't think that's a good reason for pushing everything to pgfoundry. > My impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that proper full > disjunction support would include grammar support, in which case contrib > is not where it should belong anyway. If that's so, then the next step > would be for somebody to pick up the work that Tzahi has done and take > it the rest of the way. That would be a worth goal for 8.3. You are correct, a *full* implementation would most likely include integration into the core; grammar and all. However, being as it's an entirely new feature in any database system ever seen, I don't think it should be required. It's kind of funny though; it's difficult enough to convince -hackers to adopt a feature that every other database system in the world has, yet we're going to make it even more difficult for an innovative feature. I can only imagine trying to get a consensus on the grammar and implementation of a totally nonstandard feature that only a few people really understand. As I see it, the full disjunction code will likely end up being a low profile project on pgfoundry because Tzahi won't have time to continue maintaining it and not many of us have enough insight into it to do so ourselves. As such, I don't think it's going to get enough attention and enough of a user following to make it worth the time of one of the core developers to pick it up. Of course, I may always be wrong. Perhaps pgfoundry is more popular than I've seen in past experience. Maybe one of the core developers does want to pick up full disjunctions for 8.3. Guess we'll just have to wait and see... -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
On 8/26/06, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Your attitude has been lacking about this whole thing, as has a lot of > other people. PgFoundry is the official sub project site for PostgreSQL. That may be the case. However, all I've seen+heard is conjecture that pgfoundry is a good thing; where's the proof? Show me and other fellow "whiners" that a lot of people use pgfoundry and I'll gladly shut up about it. > It is not a graveyard, projects on PgFoundry should receive full > advocacy and promotion about their abilities and their linkage PostgreSQL. See previous email to Andrew regarding projects that don't work with the latest versions of PostgreSQL. I think I've even seen a pgfoundry project last updated for 7.x; that's certainly the case for gborg. > If we spent half as much time promoting and helping the various sub > project succeed as we doing whining on this list, we would be far more > dominant in the industry then we are. So, subprojects [pgfoundry] is the source of all industry dominance? I wish I would've known that before :) Sorry, I was itchin' to say it. > I am sick of all the moaning that goes on, So am I... in general. > When full disjunctons is ready, I am sure it will be considered for > core. It currently is not and pgFoundry is the perfect place for until > until then. As it's not a common feature, I don't think many of the hackers know what it is or what it does. Certainly, very few have spoken on this thread. It's odd, only 10 people have commented on this thread; 4 of which are core members, 2 in favor and 2 against. Yet, we're having an argument on why this wasn't included. Unless this is the new math, 2 vs. 2 seems like a tie to me. > We can still promote and announce we have a full disjunctions > implementation, just as we can advertise we have full text indexing. Wherever it ends up, I look forward to seeing the promotion and announcements. Tzahi has put a lot of work into it over the past few months. I'm done on this topic but would gladly appreciate public or private proof regarding pgfoundry's popularity. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 8/26/06, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> Your attitude has been lacking about this whole thing, as has a lot of >> other people. PgFoundry is the official sub project site for PostgreSQL. > > That may be the case. However, all I've seen+heard is conjecture that > pgfoundry is a good thing; where's the proof? Show me and other > fellow "whiners" that a lot of people use pgfoundry and I'll gladly > shut up about it. > > true story. I walked into my new boss's office the other day. He knew I was connected with PostgreSQL (after all, that's why he gave me the job), but we had never discussed pgfoundry - in fact he was very surprised yesterday to hear I had anything to do with it. But that day his browser was open on the pgfoundry home page. So, yes, it is used, and by far more that just hard core hackers. cheers andrew
On 8/26/06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > So, yes, it is used, and by far more that just hard core hackers. OK. Kewl. I just hadn't run into many people (except hackers) that knew about it. Thanks for sharing that. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
-----Original Message----- From: pgsql-patches-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Jonah H. Harris Sent: Sun 8/27/2006 3:24 AM To: Joshua D. Drake Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Bruce Momjian; Tzahi Fadida; pgsql-patches@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib > It's odd, only 10 people have commented on this thread; 4 of which are > core members, 2 in favor and 2 against. Yet, we're having an argument > on why this wasn't included. Unless this is the new math, 2 vs. 2 > seems like a tie to me. Y'know I was gonna check up on that because my recollection was that it was a 2/2 split as well, though I thought that wasof people who made their view clear rather than just -core (whose opinion in this case is no more important than any ofthe other long time contributors imho). Don't suppose you noted the views of the other 6? Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-patches-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Jonah H. Harris
> Sent: Sun 8/27/2006 3:24 AM
> To: Joshua D. Drake
> Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Bruce Momjian; Tzahi Fadida; pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib
>
>> It's odd, only 10 people have commented on this thread; 4 of which are
>> core members, 2 in favor and 2 against. Yet, we're having an argument
>> on why this wasn't included. Unless this is the new math, 2 vs. 2
>> seems like a tie to me.
>
> Y'know I was gonna check up on that because my recollection was that it was a 2/2 split as well, though I thought
thatwas of people who made their view clear rather than just -core (whose opinion in this case is no more important
thanany of the other long time contributors imho). Don't suppose you noted the views of the other 6?
IIRC some of the rejection points, was the code:
1. Is not quite complete
2. Does not follow postgresql style guidelines
Those two items make it impossible to include Full disjunctions in core.
I believe those two points were made by Tom but I can't find his
response so if I am on crack -- I apologize in advance.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
On 8/27/06, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > 1. Is not quite complete Only because it wasn't merged into the core. Which, like I said, would be difficult to get consensus on design, grammar, and implementation when it's a brand new and non-standard feature only a few people understand. I honestly don't think a project like that would've ever gotten off the ground in -hackers. Being a contrib module makes it a bit more flexible and gives people the chance to try it out; that way we'll see if it's worth merging into the core. Think of it as a Phase I of Full DIsjunctions... Phase II is a bit of a redesign and merge into 8.3. > 2. Does not follow postgresql style guidelines This statement was not made. > I believe those two points were made by Tom but I can't find his > response so if I am on crack -- I apologize in advance. One of the points, taken a little out of context, was made by Tom. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
> Y'know I was gonna check up on that because my recollection was that it was a 2/2 split as well, though I thought thatwas of people who made their view clear rather than just -core (whose opinion in this case is no more important thanany of the other long time contributors imho). Don't suppose you noted the views of the other 6? As counted, regarding inclusion in /contrib the thread sits at 5 for, 4 against, and 1 seems to lean toward making it a contrib. Just in case my counting is wrong, this is what I've marked: Tzahi Fadida - For Bruce Momjian - Against AgentM - Possibly For Tom Lane - Against Jonah Harris - For David Fetter - For Josh Drake - Against Andrew Dunstan - Against Josh Berkus - For Dave Page - For -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> Y'know I was gonna check up on that because my recollection was that >> it was a 2/2 split as well, though I thought that was of people who >> made their view clear rather than just -core (whose opinion in this >> case is no more important than any of the other long time >> contributors imho). Don't suppose you noted the views of the other 6? > > As counted, regarding inclusion in /contrib the thread sits at 5 for, > 4 against, and 1 seems to lean toward making it a contrib. > > Just in case my counting is wrong, this is what I've marked: > > Tzahi Fadida - For > Bruce Momjian - Against > AgentM - Possibly For > Tom Lane - Against > Jonah Harris - For > David Fetter - For > Josh Drake - Against > Andrew Dunstan - Against > Josh Berkus - For > Dave Page - For > Well, I don't think all your 9 qualify as long time contributors, if you want to count numbers. Even if there is a vote in favor, somebody has to commit it and take responsibility for it. I at least don't have time right now. cheers andrew
Jonah H. Harris wrote: > > Y'know I was gonna check up on that because my recollection was that it was a 2/2 split as well, though I thought thatwas of people who made their view clear rather than just -core (whose opinion in this case is no more important thanany of the other long time contributors imho). Don't suppose you noted the views of the other 6? > > As counted, regarding inclusion in /contrib the thread sits at 5 for, > 4 against, and 1 seems to lean toward making it a contrib. > > Just in case my counting is wrong, this is what I've marked: > > Tzahi Fadida - For > Bruce Momjian - Against > AgentM - Possibly For > Tom Lane - Against > Jonah Harris - For > David Fetter - For > Josh Drake - Against > Andrew Dunstan - Against > Josh Berkus - For > Dave Page - For I didn't realize the vote was even close for acceptance. I only remember Josh saying he would use it. Saying we should have it to remain "cutting-edge" doesn't strike me as a valid reason for inclusion, but more of a philosophical one, which worries me. I would like it added because people want its functionality, not because it is somehow cool. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +