| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, curtis(dot)ruck(at)gmail(dot)com, José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>, Curtis Ruck <curtis(dot)ruck+pgsql(dot)hackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Auditing |
| Date: | 2016-02-02 22:23:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ16N8+smxa81zA7A16=pf_2UiqvhWyj2Ahjt3dgzJwig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:16 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> This sort of confusion is one of the main reasons I pursued inclusion in
> core.
But that's exactly wrong. When there is not agreement on one code
base over another, that's the time it is most important not to pick
one of them arbitrarily privilege it over the others. The *only* time
it's appropriate to move something that could just as well as an
extension into core is when (1) we think it's highly likely that users
will want that particular thing rather than some other thing and (2)
we think it's worth the burden of maintaining that code forever.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-02 22:33:20 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-02 22:18:09 | Re: [POC] FETCH limited by bytes. |