Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1216756305.3894.493.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Список | 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.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: