Re: PostgreSQL Auditing

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: PostgreSQL Auditing
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ16N8+smxa81zA7A16=pf_2UiqvhWyj2Ahjt3dgzJwig@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PostgreSQL Auditing  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Ответы Re: PostgreSQL Auditing  (Curtis Ruck <curtis.ruck+pgsql.hackers@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:16 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> This sort of confusion is one of the main reasons I pursued inclusion in
> core.

But that's exactly wrong.  When there is not agreement on one code
base over another, that's the time it is most important not to pick
one of them arbitrarily privilege it over the others.  The *only* time
it's appropriate to move something that could just as well as an
extension into core is when (1) we think it's highly likely that users
will want that particular thing rather than some other thing and (2)
we think it's worth the burden of maintaining that code forever.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [POC] FETCH limited by bytes.
Следующее
От: curtis.ruck@gmail.com
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL Auditing