From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |
Date: | 2008-04-03 04:57:11 |
Message-ID: | 23134.1207198631@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K
>> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or
>> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature
>> that so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for.
> That is likely because everyone knew he was working on it.
By "everyone" I suppose you mean the dozen or three people who are
paying close attention to who's doing what in PG development. The
above argument is hogwash, really. If SQL/PSM support were so widely
desired as to justify a code addition of this size, then the archives
would be littered with requests for it. Try to find some. (As a
reasonable comparison point for what it takes to justify a large
code addition, compare that to the number of times that text search
requests show up --- most of them coming from people who don't know
who Oleg and Teodor are.)
I'm not against having SQL/PSM support. I'm just saying I'm not
willing to support two copies of plpgsql to do it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-04-03 05:02:29 | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-04-03 04:34:54 | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |