On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

>  If this were at all true we would not not have seen the complaints from
> people along the lines of "My ISP won't install contrib". But we have, and
> quite a number of times. We have concrete evidence that calling it contrib
> actually works against us.

It's hard to see ISPs who won't install contrib from installing
${random module} from the big bad internet as has been discussed in
this thread, but who knows?

If we go with a solution that allows users to say "install mymodule;"
or whatever into their own database, is there any reason not to
install (as in make install) all modules currently called contrib by
default? Are there any security issues with modules in there? I seem
to remember something coming up involving dblink a while back...

Cheers

Tom

In response to

• Re: modules at 2008-04-03 14:55:39 from Andrew Dunstan

Responses

• Re: modules at 2008-04-03 15:47:12 from Joshua D. Drake

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Dimitri Fontaine	Date: 2008-04-03 15:46:05
	Subject: Re: COPY Transform support
Previous:	From: Mark Mielke	Date: 2008-04-03 15:32:37
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Joshua D. Drake	Date: 2008-04-03 15:47:12
	Subject: Re: modules
Previous:	From: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo	Date: 2008-04-03 15:32:54
	Subject: Re: is it helpful for the optimiser/planner to add LIMIT 1