On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 07:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The current name causes constant confusion. It's a significant misnomer,
>>> and
>>> leads people to distrust the code. There might be reasons not to change,
>>> but
>>> you should at least recognize why the suggestion is being made.
>>
>> Is it your position that contrib code is as well-vetted as core code?
>
> A damn sight more than it used to be. I claim a bit of credit for that -
> before the buildfarm existed it was quite poorly tested, but we can't get
> away with that any more. (Ditto PLs and ECPG once we added those into the
> buildfarm mix.) Of course, there are odd corners in the code. But hstore,
> for example, has just had a major makeover, and pgcrypto is pretty well
> maintained. Some other modules are less well loved. There are a few small
> bits of the core code that have cobwebs too.
Fair enough. I think overall our code quality is good, and, over
time, it's probably risen both within and outside core. Still, I
think renaming contrib would likely be a lot more hassle than it's
worth, and I don't think it would do much to remove the central issue,
which is that installing extensions is a pain in the neck. Dimitri's
work will help with that somewhat, but there's still that nasty
business of needing to update shared_preload_libraries and bounce the
server, at least for some modules.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company