Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Marc G. Fournier
Тема Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Дата
Msg-id 20040421163008.Q32445@ganymede.hub.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > My personal opinion is that contrib should be removed entirely.
>
> That's not real workable for code that is tightly tied to the backend,
> such as the various GIST index extensions presently in contrib.  It's
> just easier to maintain that code when it's in with the backend.
>
> However the replication modules don't seem to have such a linkage,
> so I have no objection to moving them out.

Agreed ... but I also think that something like pg_autovacuum should be
moved to gborg ... there seems to be alot of activity on fixing bugs in it
that most ppl won't see until they upgrade to the next release, even
though those fixes would be pertinent/useful to their current
implementation ... begin able to download/install pg_autovacuum 1.1 would
definitely be a good thing, when it was considered stable enoguh for a
release ...

tsearch, I believe, is maintained somewhere else already, no?  same with
tsearch2?

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Dave Page"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Следующее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions