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
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 |