Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.

On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:22:48AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 08/05/2015 10:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Anyway, the patch as proposed puts the new functions in core as builtins
>>> (which is what Bruce seems to be objecting to). Maybe instead of
>>> proposing moving existing extensions in core, it would be better to have
>>> this patch put those two new functions alone as a single new extension
>>> in src/extension, and not move anything else. I don't necessarily
>>> resist adding these functions as builtins, but if we do that then
>>> there's no going back to having them as an extension instead, which is
>>> presumably more in line with what we want in the long run.
>>
>> For my part, I am unclear on why we are putting *any* diagnostic tools
>> in /contrib today. Either the diagnostic tools are good quality and
>> necessary for a bunch of users, in which case we ship them in core, or
>> they are obscure and/or untested, in which case they go in an external
>> project and/or on PGXN.
>>
>> Yes, for tools with overhead we might want to require enabling them in
>> pg.conf. But that's very different from requiring the user to install a
>> separate package.
>
> I don't care what we do, but I do think we should be consistent.
> Frankly I am unclear why I am even having to make this point, as cases
> where we have chosen expediency over consistency have served us badly in
> the past.

Saying "it's stupid to be consistent with a bad old rule", and making a
new rule is not "expediency".

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com