Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL

From: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
To: chris(at)bitmead(dot)com
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
Date: 2000-02-03 15:39:28
Message-ID: 3.0.1.32.20000203073928.00fc2ec0@mail.pacifier.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

At 04:38 PM 2/3/00 +1100, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:

>> On the other hand, as someone who once made his living off his
>> designed and implemented optimizing multi-language, multi-platform
>> compiler technology...is it entirely out of the question to
>> consider more greatly abstracting the language (gram.y/analyze.c)
>> and backend (optimizer and executor) interfaces so more than one
>> front-end could exist (even if only in experimental and research
>> environments)? Along with front-end specific versions of libpq?
>
>A good thought, but we still need one good front end that supports
>all the features.

I wasn't think in terms of this being mutually exclusive with your
desires. Merely raising up the notion that the possibility exists
of creating a sandbox, so to speak, for people to play in, a tool
for the exploration of such concepts.

>> Nor mine, in fact the stuff I've seen about primitive OO in databases
>> make me thing the folks just don't get it.
>>
>> Not to mention that I'm not convinced that "getting it" is worth it. OO
>> fits some paradigms, not others, when programming in the large.
>
>Well, the features I'm talking about don't affect you unless you want
>OO.

No, and I wasn't arguing that you shouldn't move forward, either. I
was just stating my personal opinion regarding the utility of simple
OO-ish features, that's all.

>> One reason I raise the issue of possible multiple front-ends (or making
>> it easy for folks to make there own by making the parser->optimizer/backend
>> interface more general) is that this whole area would seem to be one
>> that begs for RESEARCH and experimentalism.
>
>No research is required. I simply want to implement the ODMG STANDARD
>for ODBMS databases on PostgreSQL. There are no great design issues
>here,
>just a matter of nailing down the details so that everyone can live
>with them.

Well...that's sorta like saying no research into procedural language
design is needed 'cause now we've got C++.

Whether or not the existing standard for ODBMS is the greatest thing
since sliced bread, I find it hard to believe that no research is
required or design issues raised by the fundamental problems of
database technology.

Maybe I'm wrong, though, maybe the problem's been solved.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2000-02-03 15:42:08 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
Previous Message Jaume Pausas 2000-02-03 14:41:43 multiple users

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2000-02-03 15:42:08 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-02-03 15:30:32 AW: [HACKERS] SELECT FOR UPDATE leaks relation refcounts

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2000-02-03 15:42:08 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
Previous Message Mark Volpe 2000-02-03 15:21:44 Re: [SQL] Question about SELECT and ORDER BY