Re: why is postgres-R not in standard dev Path.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: chinni <naveen(dot)bysani(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why is postgres-R not in standard dev Path.
Date: 2004-07-27 15:03:46
Message-ID: 28620.1090940626@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

chinni <naveen(dot)bysani(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Did you guys debate on merging it.

Yes.

If it were actually synced with our current CVS and potentially
mergeable, the debate might have been longer :-(. But in point of fact,
postgres-R has never been less than two releases behind in the past five
years, and so there was never a time when merging it was technically
feasible.

There are also political issues --- merging it into our core would be
seen as blessing one particular replication solution to the exclusion
of others.

And last I checked, there were licensing issues, because postgres-R
depends on a group-communication package that doesn't use a BSD-style
license.

I'd personally be willing to override the political objections if the
other two categories of problems were surmounted. But I doubt they
ever will be.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-07-27 15:19:24 Re: Savepoints inside functions
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-27 15:00:02 Re: Savepoints inside functions