On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:28 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> The only advantage that remains, I think, is the real-world concern
> that you can have proprietary plugins
How exactly is this plugin more likely to result in a proprietary plugin
than all of the other plugin types we have? Because I suggest it??
I find it quite amazing that anybody would think I proposed a patch
whose "only advantage" lay in commercial exploitation, implying that I
intend that. But at least you had the courage to write it, allowing me
to answer, so actually I'll say thank you for raising that point:
** I have no plans for selling software that has been enabled by this
patch. **
The plugin approach was suggested because it brings together so many use
cases in one and adds missing robustness to a case where we already have
extensibility. Extensibility is about doing things for specific
implementations *without* needing to patch Postgres, not just allowing
external projects to exist alongside.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support