Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items )

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items )
Date: 2002-08-01 05:52:15
Message-ID: 5048.1028181135@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> Until we have folks who are excited enough about it to plan it out and
> do the work, piecemeal rejection of components is not leading to a more
> solid product.

I'm lukewarm about whether to actually do the split or not ... but for
sure I agree with Thomas' point here. We need a plan and careful
implementation, or a split-up will just make life worse.

Stuff that is in the tree tends to get maintained in passing. For
example, I've got some changes to contrib/dblink/ in my in-progress
version of Chris' DROP COLUMN patch, because a grep for references
to rel->rd_att turned it up. If dblink weren't in our CVS it'd have
been broken by DROP COLUMN, and who knows whether we'd catch that
during beta? I realize that Marc wasn't proposing splitting off any
server-side code, but I still want to tread carefully about breaking
up the codebase.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-08-01 05:53:09 Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-08-01 05:40:25 Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items )