Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Still sounds good. Do you think that this system could be extended to other
>> add-ons in the future which are currently more complex builds? And allow us
>> to out some of the wierder things in /contrib?
>
> The "system" already exists --- it's pgxs. We already have a report
> from Thomas Hallgren that pgxs works for building pljava, so I'm not
> too concerned about assuming it can be used for the other PLs. And
> I think we have already pgxs-ified all of contrib, though that's
> not the current standard method of building contrib.
>
> I have no problem with pushing out any part of contrib that doesn't seem
> tightly tied to the core server. I'm not entirely sure where to draw
> the line, but for instance I'd probably want to keep dblink where it is,
> since functions-returning-records are still in considerable flux.

Can I suggest that we focus on PLs first and foremost, since that will
allow us to get stuff like pl/PHP, pl/Java, pl/J(?), and pl/R in place,
and then ramp up other stuff as time permits?

Do we want to consider adding in a "mirror" of the JDBC/ODBC stuff in the
same way? Based on the direction we are taking, I'm all for it .. the
idea being that when beta starts, the JDBC folk (or ODBC, or ?) would
submit a mega patch to be applied to the tree and tag'd in with the rest
of it, and beta distribution copies built up ... development of the
various drivers would remain on gborg/pgfoundry where they are now, all
we'd have in our CVS would be 'the released version' ...

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