Re: status/timeline of pglogical?

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 07:25 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I'm wondering whether or not we should be promoting pglogical with the
>>> release as an external extension.
>>
>>
>> We have a long standing practice of not promoting external
>> tools/utilities/add-ons in docs or with releases - as you know we went
>> out of our way to remove such references from the docs years ago.
>
>
> The idea that the concrete we poured 15 years ago never needs to be
> inspected for upgrade is a very poor way to insure the integrity and
> strength of the foundation.

And the idea of redesigning the foundation without barely a nod to the
thought process behind the original design is also not a good idea.

>> This becomes especially problematic when such external
>> tools/utilities/add-ons have been developed by one particular company,
>> as Robert pointed out here
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZVBmTnUT419mS3pV9hESJh78gibD_2tviaoGMWvOTwtg@mail.gmail.com
>
>
> Correct.
>
>>
>> I strongly oppose recommending any non-core 'stuff' in the docs or
>> press releases/announcements (including pgAdmin 4).
>>
>
> We play favorites all the time we just don't like to admit it publicly.

Right - and for good reason in my opinion (and I say that as someone
who would probably get significant advantages if we did).

> This actually comes back to the idea of having an official extensions
> project but we don't need to get into that in this thread.

True dat.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company