Re: Proposal - Enabling btree_gist by default

On 1/8/26 11:14 AM, Alastair Turner wrote:
> I expect the same complication would exist for anything which
> moved functionality including data types into core. Which reinforces the
> point for me that extensions and upgrades is the yak that needs to be
> shaved before a lot of the discussions about where functionality should
> be maintained can be acted on.
>
> I'll strip out the preparatory fix for cleaning up search path settings
> in initdb scripts into a separate thread.
>
> FWIW, the discussion which led to proposing enabling the extension by
> default had started off as a discussion of what from the contrib
> extension world it would be desirable to move into core. Enabling an
> extension by default (with PL/pgSQL as an almost-precedent) was seen as
> a preferable alternative because:
>  - It's a less intrusive change (which this thread may have invalidated)
>  - It keeps the relevant extension points and APIs in use by something
> which goes through CI
>  - By providing that clearer boundary, it may (an admittedly very
> speculative may) help to scale the maintenance effort horizontally

A not very realistic dream for me would be to move some things (mostly
the money type) out of core rather than moving moe stuff in to core, but
given pg_upgrade and OID stability I do not think that is realistic.

Andreas