| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Rick Gigger <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2 features status |
| Date: | 2006-08-05 16:22:02 |
| Message-ID: | 28923.1154794922@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 12:19:54AM -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>> FTI is a biggie in my mind. I know it ain't happening for 8.2, but is
>> the general plan to integrate TSearch2 directly into the backend?
> When the Tsearch developers say so I think.
Yeah, that's my take too. Oleg and Teodor obviously feel it's not "done"
yet, and ISTM leaving it in contrib gives them more flexibility in a
couple of ways:
* they can make user-visible API changes without people getting as upset
as if they were changing core features;
* because it is a removable contrib module, they can (and do) offer
back-ports of newer versions to existing PG release branches.
I think some descendant of tsearch2 will eventually be in core, but
we'll wait till we're pretty certain it's feature-stable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-05 16:27:25 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_statement output for protocol |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-08-05 15:59:10 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_statement output for protocol |