Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:10 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There is a finite limit to how much stuff we can maintain as part of core.
> I don't agree with that at all.
Really? Let's have a discussion of how thermodynamics applies to
software management sometime.
>>> If we have multiple candidates with sufficient code quality, then we may
>>> consider including both.
>> Dear god, no.
> I hate to pick on any particular part of the tree, but it seems
> entirely plausible to me that a second columnar storage implementation
> could deliver more incremental value than spgist, an index AM you
> committed.
Yeah, and that's something I've regretted more than once; I think SP-GiST
is a sterling example of something that isn't nearly useful enough in the
real world to justify the amount of maintenance effort we've been forced
to expend on it. You might trawl the commit logs to get a sense of the
amount of my own personal time --- not that of the original submitters ---
that's gone into that one module. Then ask yourself how much that model
will scale, and what other more-useful things I could've accomplished
with that time.
We do need to limit what we accept into core PG. I do not buy your
argument that users expect everything to be in core. Or more accurately,
the people who do think that way won't be using PG anyway --- they'll
be using MSSQL because it comes from their OS vendor.
regards, tom lane