Re: Rules: A Modest Proposal

On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:25:31PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> David,
>
> > The radical proposal was the RULE system. It's been tested now,
> > and it's pretty much failed.
>
> I don't think you've demonstrated that. I know *you* don't like
> RULEs, but others do.

It's less about like or dislike and more about facing up to the
reality that we've got a major legacy foot-gun left over from the
experimentation of the Berkeley days. You'll recall we removed time
travel for much less good reasons, namely performance, as opposed to
actually breaking stuff. What people actually use RULEs for
successfully, I've named.

I'm proposing we cover those cases, deprecate (not depreciate ;) RULEs
in the cycle or two following that coverage, and remove them after
that.

> I could propose that UUIDs are a bankrupt concept (which I believe)
> and therefore we should drop the UUID contrib module, but I don't
> think I'd get very far.

UUIDs are much harder to shoot yourself with. :)

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate