| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
| Date: | 2012-08-20 20:53:18 |
| Message-ID: | 5032A3BE.9080701@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/20/2012 01:33 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> But there is absolutely no evidence that we are making it less useful.
> Postgres is designed top be extensible and we've just enhanced that.
> pgcrypto makes use of that. If we cen leverage that to make Postgres
> available to more people then why would we not do so?
O.k. that is valid a valid argument. Let me counter.
Everybody else does it, why don't we? PostgreSQL is extensible, modular
and programmable, why are we limiting those features by not including
them in core? Contrib, whether we like it or not, is not core.
For some things it makes absolute sense to keep them in contrib or pgxn
but cryptography is pretty much a basic core feature set at this point.
MySQL, MSSQL, Oracle (not sure if integrated or as a pack) and not to
mention Java and Python all have them integrated.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-08-20 20:57:21 | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-20 20:50:54 | Re: NOT NULL constraints in foreign tables |