On 02/13/2013 10:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 02/13/2013 09:13 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 13-Feb-2013, at 19:31, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> . >>> I think its a good idea, the best idea even, but we still have no idea >>> what the requirements are without a clear case for an external index. >>> It could easily turn out that we invent a plausible API that's not >>> actually of use because of requirements for locking. Whoever wants >>> that can do the legwork. >>> >>> IIRC each of the new index types has required some changes to the >>> generic APIs, which makes sense. >>> >>> >> Does that mean we can add support for fractal tree indexes(or some >> thing on similar lines) in the regular way by changing the generic APIs? >> >> IMO, we could design the fractal tree index and use it as the use >> case for generic WAL record(I am kind of obsessed with the idea of >> seeing fractal indexes being supported in Postgres). >> > > If they are patented as Alexander says upthread, then surely the idea > is dead in the water. Isn't practically everything patented, with varying degrees of validity and patent defensibility? Particularly the trick of "renewing" expired patents by submitting tiny variations.
I realise that this general situation is different to knowing about a specific patent applying to a specific proposed technique, particularly regarding the USA's insane triple-damages-for-knowing-about-it thing, and that a patent can well and truly block the adoption of a technique into Pg core. It might not prevent its implementation as an out-of-tree extension though, even if that requires some enhancements to core APIs to make it possible. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
