Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-22 19:51:45
Message-ID: 1216756305.3894.493.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> From a maintenance point of view there seems little need
> for either project to get integrated: they don't appear to have much
> of any code that is tightly tied to backend innards.

This is a slightly circular argument. They have had to be written with
no linkage to core to allow them to be created outside of it.

I agree with your general principles on inclusion of features and also
agree that in this specific case the patches should be rejected. Growing
up outside of core cannot be a reason to exclude new capabilities from
core, but it is probably a reason to reject specific code.

In both these cases, I can see that the capability could be provided in
a different way and benefit from tighter integration.

I think we should return them with comments that if you integrate them
more with core *and* can justify having done so, then we might include
those features later.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2008-07-22 20:33:19 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous Message Francisco Reyes 2008-07-22 19:30:21 Re: [ADMIN] shared_buffers and shmmax