On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> As a packager, what I'd really want to see from a division into
>>> recommended and not-so-recommended packages is that they get installed
>>> into different subdirectories by "make install".
>
>> Well, that might be good, too. But, right now, if someone pulls up
>> our documentation, or our source tree, they could easily be forgiven
>> for thinking that hstore and dummy_seclabel are comparable, and they
>> aren't.
>
> Sure, but that's a documentation issue, which again is not going to be
> helped by a source-tree rearrangement.
I disagree - I think it would be helpful to rearrange both things.
> As somebody who spends a lot of time on back-patching, I'm not excited
> in the least by suggestions to rearrange the source tree for marginal
> cosmetic benefits, which is all that I see here.
I understand, but we have back-patched only 32 patches that touch
contrib into REL9_0_STABLE since its creation, of which 9 were done by
you, and only 4 of those would have required adjustment under the
separation criteria I proposed. I think, therefore, that the impact
would be bearable. Source-code rearrangement is never going to be
completely free, but that seems like a tolerable level of annoyance.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company