On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:29 AM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > 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. > > Everything is planned to be released under the Apache 2.0 license so people are free to do with it as they choose.
