From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Date: | 2008-07-22 19:51:45 |
Message-ID: | 1216756305.3894.493.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> From a maintenance point of view there seems little need
> for either project to get integrated: they don't appear to have much
> of any code that is tightly tied to backend innards.
This is a slightly circular argument. They have had to be written with
no linkage to core to allow them to be created outside of it.
I agree with your general principles on inclusion of features and also
agree that in this specific case the patches should be rejected. Growing
up outside of core cannot be a reason to exclude new capabilities from
core, but it is probably a reason to reject specific code.
In both these cases, I can see that the capability could be provided in
a different way and benefit from tighter integration.
I think we should return them with comments that if you integrate them
more with core *and* can justify having done so, then we might include
those features later.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-07-22 20:33:19 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Previous Message | Francisco Reyes | 2008-07-22 19:30:21 | Re: [ADMIN] shared_buffers and shmmax |