Sorry Ann, I really didn't mean that as any sort of insult. I was reusing the language of a
previous email to make a point. Postgres is ahead in terms of user-defined datatypes, and that was
a choice of theirs when converting from Ingres. I'm not saying anything about other features of the
two products.

I'm not suggesting that a pluggable system should come blank. It would need default datatypes:
a) for compatibility with existing databases;
b) to prove that the pluggable system works, and is flexible enough;
c) to provide sample code for creating new datatypes.

I honestly think all pluggable systems should come with at least two default modules -- one to be
useful, but two to showcase the need for flexibility. And both to force the interface programmers
to deal with their own interface.

-Philip

---------- Original Message -----------

> There's some question in my mind about whether Postgres is ahead of
> us - different, certainly. More appropriate for some applications -
> certainly. Less appropriate for other applications, certainly again.
> Postgres started life as an object database and had SQL grafted on.
> The object heritage makes their data model more flexible. Many year
> ago, I worked with a system that had not data types at all ... entirely
> roll-your-own. So every project started by spending four months
> defining data types and operations. Very powerful, very flexible,
> and made me really love C. Before we jump wildly into "everything
> is pluggable" lets be sure we keep simple things simple.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ann

------- End of Original Message -------