I write here the answer of Jerry Stuckle [1] because it looks me interesting and enough logical.
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.mysql/browse_thread/thread/89557609239a995e ----------------------- Quite frankly, I don't care that PostGres has user-defined types. They restrict you to a single database, when others might be better for other reasons. And yes, I think other things should have been proposed to the SQL standards committee. It doesn't take that long to get a good proposal into the standards. No, it isn't immediate. But if there is a case to be made for it, then the committee will act. Then all databases get the feature, eventually. As I said. Do it the right way. Submit your proposal. If you have a case, it will be added to the SQL standard. If not, then it's not that important. ----------------------- On Jul 14, 9:34 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martijn van Oosterhout) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 01:04:33AM -0700, Kless wrote: > > I am not in favor of adding more database-specific types to ANY > > database > > - and I think PostGres doing it was a mistake. > > So you think that adding full text indexing, gist/gin indexes, text, > geometric types should have waited until the SQL standard specified > them? With that kind of thinking we'd still be in the database stone > age. > > One of postgresql's greatest strengths is user-defined types, lets use > it. > > > If there is a demand for it, then it should be added to the SQL > > standard. That is the correct way to propose a change. That's why > > there are standards. > > You are ofcourse free to propose it to them, but the question is if > they'd listen... > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
