| From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
| Date: | 2008-07-25 20:18:47 |
| Message-ID: | 488A3527.10202@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
>> AFAIK, there is nothing that requires pl/perl, pl/tcl or pl/python to be
>> in core either.
>
> True, but I think it's a good idea to have at least one such in core,
> as a prototype to help us track the issues associated with loading a
> large third-party library along with a PL. The fact that we have three
> is historical, but on the other hand I believe we've seen distinct
> issues crop up from each one, so maybe only one isn't enough either.
Wouldn't it provide even more benefit if these were maintained
as independent modules *outside* of core but still by the core team.
That would not only help track issues of loading the library as Tom
described; but also issues related to maintaining external modules.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-25 20:28:10 | Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support. |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2008-07-25 20:14:09 | Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support. |