Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-23 17:33:35
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
>> Code outside of core, is, in reality, less reviewed, less likely to work
>> well with recent PG versions, and more likely to cause problems. It's also
>> less likely to be found by people, less likely to be used by people, and
>> less likely to be included by distros. Not to say that everything should get
>> shoved into core, of course, but there are strong arguments for both sides.
> These are all true statements, of course, but ISTM they should be looked
> on as problems to be solved. Pushing stuff into core instead of solving
> these problems is not a scalable long-term answer.

A few random thoughts...

The application that comes to mind first for me when you talk plugins is
Firefox. They make it very easy to browse for plugins and to install,
update, remove them. Their plug-in system also tries to account for
Firefox version and OS platform which we would need to do also.

Perhaps one thing that would help PostgreSQL plug-ins is a nice GUI
plug-in browser and management application. The logical place to add
this IMHO is PGAdmin since it is GUI, already talks to the DB and is
cross platform. I'm not saying a GUI should be required to manage
plug-ins, a fully CLI option should be made available too.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2008-07-23 17:36:37 Re: Postgres-R: internal messaging
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-07-23 17:09:47 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance