Subject: Re: POC: rational number type (fractions)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <20200208042554.GE42864@begriffs.com>
 <0e2422da-953b-6b96-1900-f67c7e5e3307@2ndquadrant.com>
 <5EC3031C.6020105@anastigmatix.net> <20552.1589840076@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobheOusVXxzKX6y3NaHYdTuoRFEaff6DcYMOEBgjY8gBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200522055332.GA1296415@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <57d0e68d-2706-60a3-f020-ba4c8fd4b64b@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <20200701203246.GX3125@tamriel.snowman.net> <812520.1593643251@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20200701230007.GC3125@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <75123976-d1ac-0170-0193-be41d3655cbf@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <850483.1593698487@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <aab6cb5c-654e-50d5-3a13-be465279f9eb@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <935411.1593793125@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>,
 Joe Nelson <joe@begriffs.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <64a5214d-6cf1-cfa1-e2d8-c66c9777d4c8@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 15:29:45 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <935411.1593793125@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-07-03 18:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 7/2/20 10:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah.  We *must not* simply give up on extensibility and decide that
>>> every interesting feature has to be in core.  I don't have any great
>>> ideas about how we grow the wider Postgres development community and
>>> infrastructure, but that certainly isn't the path to doing so.
> 
>> I've been thinking about this a bit. Right now there isn't anything
>> outside of core that seems to work well. PGXN was supposed to be our
>> CPAN equivalent, but it doesn't seem to have worked out that way, it
>> never really got the traction.
> 
> Yeah.  Can we analyze why it hasn't done better?  Can we improve it
> rather than starting something completely new?

This should probably all be in a different thread.  But yeah, I think a 
bit more analysis of the problem is needed before jumping into action.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services