Re: moving from contrib to bin

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: moving from contrib to bin
Date: 2014-12-12 16:26:39
Message-ID: 18578.1418401599@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not really convinced this is a very good idea. What do we get out
> of moving everything, or even anything, from contrib? It will make
> back-patching harder, but more importantly, it will possibly create
> the false impression that everything we distribute is on equal
> footing. Right now, we've got stuff like vacuumlo in contrib which is
> useful but, let's face it, also a cheap hack. If we decide that
> executables can no longer live in contrib, then every time somebody
> submits something in the future, we've got to decide whether it
> deserves parity with psql and pg_dump or whether we shouldn't include
> it at all. contrib is a nice middle-ground.

Yeah, that's a good point. I think part of the motivation here is the
thought that some of these programs, like pg_upgrade, *should* now be
considered on par with pg_dump et al. But it does not follow that
everything in contrib is, or should be, on that level.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-12-12 16:40:05 Re: moving from contrib to bin
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2014-12-12 16:23:11 Re: moving from contrib to bin