| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: multiset patch review |
| Date: | 2011-01-30 17:16:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1745.1296407817@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So, the plan is to add this now with non-standard semantics and then
> change the semantics later if and when we implement what the standard
> requires? That's not something we usually do, and I don't see why
> it's a better idea in this case than it is in general. It's OK to
> have non-standard behavior with non-standard syntax, but I think
> non-standard behavior with standard syntax is something we want to try
> hard to avoid.
> I'm in favor of rejecting this patch in its entirety. The
> functionality looks useful, but once you remove the syntax support, it
> could just as easily be distributed as a contrib module rather than in
> core.
+1 ... if we're going to provide nonstandard behavior, it should be with
a different syntax. Also, with a contrib module we could keep on
providing the nonstandard behavior for people who still need it, even
after implementing the standard properly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-30 17:34:47 | Re: multiset patch review |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-01-30 17:16:51 | Re: multiset patch review |