Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Date: 2011-10-25 12:51:53
Message-ID: 20111025125153.GE12765@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Kohei KaiGai (kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp) wrote:
> Right now, file_fdw is the only FDW module that we have in the core,

Erm, guess I'm a bit confused why we've got that in core while not
putting pgsql_fdw in core. This all gets back to previous discussions
around 'recommended' contrib modules (which should really be installed
by default on the filesystem through the distros, ala Debian's
"recommends:" approach) and 'other' contrib modules.

I'm in favor of making that distinction. I would still have pgsql_fdw,
file_fdw, etc, be packaged more-or-less the same way and still use the
CREATE EXTENTION framework, of course.

It would be nice if we didn't have to lock the release schedule of those
recommended modules to the core release schedule, or even to each other,
but that's a separate issue, imv.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Singer 2011-10-25 12:56:47 Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-10-25 12:51:51 Re: Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load