From: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Any reasons to not move pgstattuple to core? |
Date: | 2013-10-03 23:47:10 |
Message-ID: | CAL_0b1vaTFx4C9JgfVPuSToUrAFzmkDe4JXnrzhY1d9UtY+fVw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, this is a general problem with any extension - somebody might
>> want it on a system on which the admin is unable or unwilling to
>> install it. But we can't put every possible extension in core.
>
> The flip-side is that we could have made an awful lot of built-in
> things extensions, but for whatever reason chose not to. I'm not
> necessarily in favor of putting pgstattuple in core, but the question
> should be asked: Why should we do this here? In what way is
> pgstattuple like or not like the other things that are in core?
I would highlight it as it became a kind of routine one. Also,
sometimes it is required to solve problems, not to make new features,
so it often can not wait.
--
Kind regards,
Sergey Konoplev
PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
+1 (415) 867-9984, +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979
gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karol Trzcionka | 2013-10-03 23:54:50 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-10-03 22:55:45 | Re: Any reasons to not move pgstattuple to core? |