| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Policy for Abandoned Extensions |
| Date: | 2026-10-11 18:10:40 |
| Message-ID: | 381239.1791742240@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> writes:
> On Oct 10, 2026, at 17:19, shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I may have missed some moves, so 122 is an upper bound. I can send the table if you want more detailed data.
> Thanks for the offer but I can query the PGXN database directly. Will be useful to do so to figure out what to do for each case, but not so much for the overall problem.
Shihao's numbers did comfort me a little bit, because they show that
unmaintained extensions tend to drop out of use more quickly than I'd
have guessed. For the ones that include C code, there's an obvious
forcing function for that: the code will tend to stop being compilable
under newer Postgres releases if it's never getting touched at all.
Which is not to say that it's not important for PGXN to take some
action here. But perhaps it's less urgent than I first thought.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Osama Abdul Qader | 2026-10-11 18:24:37 | Re: Allow table AMs to define their own reloptions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-10-11 17:42:30 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |