Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date: 2004-04-21 18:57:10
Message-ID: 14319.1082573830@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> My personal opinion is that contrib should be removed entirely.

That's not real workable for code that is tightly tied to the backend,
such as the various GIST index extensions presently in contrib. It's
just easier to maintain that code when it's in with the backend.

However the replication modules don't seem to have such a linkage,
so I have no objection to moving them out.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2004-04-21 19:15:55 FW: Timezone library
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2004-04-21 18:53:34 Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions