From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, ams(at)oryx(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |
Date: | 2006-09-05 20:35:49 |
Message-ID: | 23538.1157488549@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Merlin,
>> well, I'm confused now. Tom said that cleaned up functions might be
>> sneaked into 8.2, which is what prompted my question.
> You're correct, he did. Tom?
Well, it's not like we're done with forced initdb's for 8.2, so I don't
particularly see the harm in adding a few more functions. I would be
against writing something large and complicated at this point, but these
functions are trivial (practically one-liners) and I don't think there's
a lot of debate needed about the API. The biggest part of the work
needed is to write the documentation --- but we'd have to do that for
Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks docs presumably fall under GPL
along with the code.
So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something cleaner
and suitable for the long run with not very much more effort.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-09-05 20:37:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Gen_fmgrtab.sh fails with LANG=et_EE |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-09-05 20:24:52 | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |