On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 03:06:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 04:01:18PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> >> I don't disagree with pg_upgrade being operationally complex, but I
> >> >> don't see how this relates to contrib vs. non-contrib at all. Are we
> >> >> supposed to only have "simple" programs in src/bin? That seems a
> >> >> strange policy.
> >> >
> >> > Well, perhaps we need to re-open the discussion then.
> >>
> >> I feel like putting it in src/bin would carry an implication of
> >> robustness that I'm not sanguine about. Granted, putting it in
> >> contrib has already pushed the envelope in that direction further than
> >> is perhaps warranted. But ISTM that if we ever want to put this in
> >> src/bin someone needs to devote some serious engineering time to
> >> filing down the rough edges.
> >
> > I don't know how to file down any of the existing rough edges.
>
> That would be the "serious engineering time" Robert is referring to,
> no? If you knew how to do it already it wouldn't require serious
> engineering time, just SMOP.
Oh, I read "serious _engineering_ time" to say that it is just a matter
of coding, while I don't even have a design idea of how to improve this,
meaning it is a lot farther away than just coding it. I equiated
engineering with coding, which I guess was wrong.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +