Re: rmgr hooks (v2)

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: rmgr hooks (v2)
Date: 2009-01-21 15:34:00
Message-ID: 1232552040.2327.496.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:28 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:

> The only advantage that remains, I think, is the real-world concern
> that you can have proprietary plugins

How exactly is this plugin more likely to result in a proprietary plugin
than all of the other plugin types we have? Because I suggest it??

I find it quite amazing that anybody would think I proposed a patch
whose "only advantage" lay in commercial exploitation, implying that I
intend that. But at least you had the courage to write it, allowing me
to answer, so actually I'll say thank you for raising that point:

** I have no plans for selling software that has been enabled by this
patch. **

The plugin approach was suggested because it brings together so many use
cases in one and adds missing robustness to a case where we already have
extensibility. Extensibility is about doing things for specific
implementations *without* needing to patch Postgres, not just allowing
external projects to exist alongside.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-21 15:44:15 Re: Pluggable Indexes
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2009-01-21 15:12:36 Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch