Interesting... I remember that some years ago, I fiddled around with
functions, operators etc. to allow a method like syntax -- but I ever
was worried this approach would have serious weaknesses -- are there any
principal hindrances to having methods, if no, can this be implemented
in a straightforward way?
Thank you in advance,
On 01/31/2011 03:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Pavel Stehule<pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> What I know no body is working on SQL/OLB ISO/IEC 9075-10 now.
>> I proposed a 3 years ago a support of methods, but without success.
>> This propose was rejected. There isn't a real interest to implement it
>> from commiters. And I have to say - users doesn't request it too. And
>> there are a few issues with compatibility.
> It seems to me it's a bit unfair to say "there isn't real interest to
> implement it from committers". Plenty of features get implemented
> that no committer particularly cares about, because a number of
> committers - including me - spend a good deal of time reviewing and
> committing patches written by other people which they never would have
> written themselves. It's true that patches sometimes get swatted down
> because they are judged to be insufficiently useful or badly design or
> because they create compatibility breaks, but that's not the same as
> "not interested", which to me implies a sort of purely arbitrary
> rejection that I try hard to avoid.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Nick Rudnick||Date: 2011-01-31 22:40:39|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested
in object functionality? (+ rule bases)|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2011-01-31 21:49:10|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|