Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:01:34 +0100
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> > I also agree with this. We have to pretend it isn't in /contrib
> >> > now, figure out where want it, then put it there (contrib,
> >> > pgfoundry, core).

> I just don't see the point in putting it in pgfoundry. It's already in
> pgfoundry as part of Skytools.
> The whole point of having such a
> datatype is to build common interface to abstract away the internals
> of the database. That makes the pgfoundry modules (Skytools and
> Slony) easier to maintain separately.

I missed the part that it is part of Skytools already but as counter
point, what makes sense at that point is for Skytools to remove it and
make it it's own module. That way Slony (which is not a pgfoundry
project) or anyone else that wants to make use of it can.

>
> Putting it in core or contrib means that when we change the snapshot
> mechanics in 8.4 the same developer will be able to fix the module at
> the same time (and find out if his changes break it at the same
> time).

Which is very cool, for *8.4* :)

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/