Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <wieck(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as
Date: 2007-10-08 17:07:57
Message-ID: 470A63ED.7040803@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +0000, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>> Log Message:
>>> -----------
>>> Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
>>> on CORE previously.
>
> To explain the situation, the public discussion about the current
> submission happened here:
>
> http://lists.pgfoundry.org/pipermail/skytools-users/2007-September/000245.html
>
> and here:
>
> http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-hackers/2007-September/000057.html

Ok. That certainly explains it - it did sound weird to have that go in
without any public discussion at all - but none of those lists are
pgsql-hackers ;-)

> And ofcourse, the original submission was at 2006-07 to _8.2_:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00157.php

Ah. I only searched for this year, since I only considered submissions
for 8.3. But still, it wasn't AFAIK on any of the patch lists etc.

> It was rejected then mostly on 3 reasons (from my POV):
>
> - it was messy and contained unnecesary cruft.
> - it was submitted to core not /contrib
> - slony was not interested in it at that moment
>
> Now as you can read from recent disussion we had, we found out
> that it would be *really* *really* cool if it would appear
> in 8.3... Talk about last moment...

Well, if it's really really cool to have, why do we put it in /contrib?
If it's that cool, it should be in core, no?

That's not just making comments, I really *do* think that it should be
in core if it's interesting enough to be added to contrib at this time.

> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
> their own opinion.

Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that -hackers is
really the ones supposed to decide on this.

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-10-08 17:34:29 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-10-08 17:05:57 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2007-10-08 17:08:19 Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-10-08 17:05:57 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as