Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 19:32:22
Message-ID: 20040421163008.Q32445@ganymede.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> "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.

Agreed ... but I also think that something like pg_autovacuum should be
moved to gborg ... there seems to be alot of activity on fixing bugs in it
that most ppl won't see until they upgrade to the next release, even
though those fixes would be pertinent/useful to their current
implementation ... begin able to download/install pg_autovacuum 1.1 would
definitely be a good thing, when it was considered stable enoguh for a
release ...

tsearch, I believe, is maintained somewhere else already, no? same with
tsearch2?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2004-04-21 19:47:09 Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Previous Message Dave Page 2004-04-21 19:24:32 Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions