| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Tipton <andrew(at)kiwidrew(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: question about HTTP API |
| Date: | 2013-08-09 16:48:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20184.1376066930@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Agreed. Too bad you can't do this as an extension, it would allow you
> to rev releases a lot faster than once a year.
> Actually, maybe you should look at "what is the minimum patch required
> to enable a webserver extension", with the idea that most of the
> webserver code would still live outside the core? That way you could
> continue to develop it a lot faster.
+1. I think for reasons such as security, a lot of people would rather
*not* see any such thing in core anyway, independent of development
issues. It's also far from clear that there is only one desirable
behavior of this sort, so a design path that offers the possibility
of multiple webserver implementations as separate extensions seems
attractive.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-09 16:53:20 | Re: pg_dump and schema names |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-08-09 16:44:41 | Re: pg_dump and schema names |