On 2/11/21 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:42 AM Jonah H. Harris <jonah.har...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> As Jan said in his last email, they're not proposing all the different >>> aspects needed. In fact, nothing has actually been proposed yet. This >>> is an entirely philosophical debate. I don't even know what's being >>> proposed at this point - I just know it *could* be useful. Let's just >>> wait and see what is actually proposed before shooting it down, yes? >> I don't think I'm trying to shoot anything down, because as I said, I >> like extensibility and am generally in favor of it. Rather, I'm >> expressing a concern which seems to me to be justified, based on what >> was posted. I'm sorry that my tone seems to have aggravated you, but >> it wasn't intended to do so. > Likewise, the point I was trying to make is that a "pluggable wire > protocol" is only a tiny part of what would be needed to have a credible > MySQL, Oracle, or whatever clone. There are large semantic differences > from those products; there are maintenance issues arising from the fact > that we whack structures like parse trees around all the time; and so on. > Maybe there is some useful thing that can be accomplished here, but we > need to consider the bigger picture rather than believing (without proof) > that a few hook variables will be enough to do anything.
Yeah. I think we'd need a fairly fully worked implementation to see where it goes. Is Amazon going to release (under TPL) its TDS implementation of this? That might go a long way to convincing me this is worth considering. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
