On 8/27/06, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, make a list and tell the admins to delete those projects.
Alright. When I come across one, I'll forward it on.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301
33
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> I'm not saying that *everything* on pgfoundry is junk... but I can
> start naming dead projects if you'd like.
Well, make a list and tell the admins to delete those projects.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of
OK, point taken. I'll admit that I had hopes for it for PR reasons, which
is not usually why we make decisions. It would be cool to be the first
database system to ship with any implementation of Full Disjunctions, and
I can't announce that if it's on pgFoundry.
You could announce it a
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I'll admit that I had hopes for it for PR reasons, which
>> is not usually why we make decisions. It would be cool to be the first
>> database system to ship with any implementation of Full Disjunctions, and
>> I can't announce
Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll admit that I had hopes for it for PR reasons, which
is not usually why we make decisions. It would be cool to be the first
database system to ship with any implementation of Full Disjunctions, and
I can't announce that if it's on pgFoundry.
I don't see that hav
Tom,
> Could we see a concrete, real-world example? So far I've seen a lot of
> arm-waving but nothing very specific.
Sure. Imagine that you work for an arts nonprofit and you have 3 (or more)
separate box office lists from last season, each of which has different
amounts of contact informati
Josh Berkus writes:
> The reason why it makes sense for FD to be in /contrib is that if it
> works out it will be a new join type, which is definitely core-code stuff.
You seem to have missed my point, which is that implementation as a new
join type would probably have nothing in common with the
Josh Berkus writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I am still waiting for someone to tell us that they would use this
>> capability for a real-world problem.
> It's extremely useful for data mining and data consolidation where
> you're given messy or sparse data to "clean up" and present intelligentl
ROTECTED]>
Cc: "David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "AgentM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"PostgreSQL-development"
Sent: 13/08/06 22:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS
On 8/13/06, Josh Berkus wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Tom,
The case for FD seems to be basically "if you build it they will come",
and I'm sorry but I'm not sold. If it gets some traction as a pgfoundry
project then we could look at doing a second-generation implementation
in a form that could actually get into core... but until then I'm
inclined
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am still waiting for someone to tell us that they would use this
capability for a real-world problem.
It's extremely useful for data mining and data consolidation where
you're given messy or sparse data to "clean up" and present intelligently.
For example, if it had ex
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it were just me laying out the boundary, I'd say that anything that
> changes the grammar of SQL--for example, adding FULL
> DISJUNCTION--can't really be a viable trial outside the main
> distribution channels and deserves a couple of versions' stay in
David Fetter wrote:
If it were just me laying out the boundary, I'd say that anything that
changes the grammar of SQL--for example, adding FULL
DISJUNCTION--can't really be a viable trial outside the main
distribution channels and deserves a couple of versions' stay in one
of those channels if
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see the harm in including this one for at least this release.
> If no one uses it, take it out for 8.3.
Once stuff is in contrib, it tends to stay there. The above argument
is completely disingenuous --- we'd have to have the same argument
a
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 11:45:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > > Our distribution is not a place to experiment with things.
> > > That's what separate pgfoundry projects are for. The fact we
> > > have some unusual things in /contrib is not a reason to add
> > > more.
> >
David Fetter wrote:
> > Our distribution is not a place to experiment with things. That's
> > what separate pgfoundry projects are for. The fact we have some
> > unusual things in /contrib is not a reason to add more.
>
> If it's on track to become part of PostgreSQL, as other innovative
> featu
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 10:07:06AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > On 8/12/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > More seriously: the current state of affairs is that the
> > > full-disjunction code exists as a pgfoundry project. If it's
> > > indeed the second grea
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 8/12/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > More seriously: the current state of affairs is that the
> > full-disjunction code exists as a pgfoundry project. If it's indeed the
> > second greatest thing since sliced bread, then I think we could assume
> > that peop
On 8/12/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More seriously: the current state of affairs is that the
full-disjunction code exists as a pgfoundry project. If it's indeed the
second greatest thing since sliced bread, then I think we could assume
that people will find it and use it from pgfound
AgentM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You won't find anyone to vouch for it because this is the first
> implementation of full disjunctions in any database. That doesn't
> mean it isn't useful- it means no one is using it because it hasn't
> existed until now.
> This is the point where one ne
AgentM wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:01 , Tzahi Fadida wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 12 August 2006 07:22, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I am still waiting for someone to tell us that they would use this
> >> capability for a real-world problem.
>
> Notice that if you google "full disjunction" that th
On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:01 , Tzahi Fadida wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 07:22, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am still waiting for someone to tell us that they would use this
capability for a real-world problem.
Notice that if you google "full disjunction" that the first link is
this project.
On Saturday 12 August 2006 07:22, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am still waiting for someone to tell us that they would use this
> capability for a real-world problem.
I suggest looking into web applications.
The example here
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzahi/soc.html
shows a possible 3 separate web re
On Friday 11 August 2006 07:18, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have looked over this addition, and I think I finally understand it.
> Given three tables, A, B, C, which join as A->B, B->C, C->A, you can
> really join them as A->B->C, and A->C->B. What full disjunction does is
> to perform both of those
I am still waiting for someone to tell us that they would use this
capability for a real-world problem.
---
Tzahi Fadida wrote:
> On Friday 11 August 2006 07:18, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have looked over this addition, and
I have looked over this addition, and I think I finally understand it.
Given three tables, A, B, C, which join as A->B, B->C, C->A, you can
really join them as A->B->C, and A->C->B. What full disjunction does is
to perform both of those joins, and return a one row for each join. Here
is an examp
27 matches
Mail list logo
