| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| 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 |