Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Tzahi Fadida" <Tzahi(dot)ML(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib
Date: 2006-08-27 02:24:29
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On 8/26/06, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)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

> 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

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

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(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            |

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-08-27 02:35:01
Subject: Re: Hierarchical Queries--Status
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2006-08-27 02:08:19
Subject: Re: [Pgsqlrpms-hackers] Safer auto-initdb for RPM init

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-08-27 02:35:01
Subject: Re: Hierarchical Queries--Status
Previous:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2006-08-27 02:07:57
Subject: Re: Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group