| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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: | 2004-04-23 03:27:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20040423002602.H32445@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> No, I don't call that lazy, I call it smart. It makes use (reuse) of a
> part of Postgres (the contrib build system) that is among its strengths.
> Is it your goal to make it harder for people to write their own C
> language functions? It makes no sense whatsoever to expect everyone who
> wants to extend Postgres to develop their own build system. I'd call
> that alot of duplicated effort -- effort better spent more productively.
Then, like I mentined to Bruce, we should be looking at some sort of
template that those developers can work off of ... downloading an 11Meg
file to build a 2k module seems a wee bit excessive, no?
>
> No one (including me) has ever claimed it is any kind of a replication
> system. It is completely different functionality.
Sorry, my bad here ... I was mixing dblink with dbmirror ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-23 03:28:46 | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2004-04-23 03:05:22 | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |