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
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 |