On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 09:06 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> These are all excellent points but I think the real problem here is:
>>> There is nothing that requires pl/proxy to be in core.
>> AFAIK, there is nothing that requires pl/perl, pl/tcl or pl/python to be
>> in core either.
> True, but I think it's a good idea to have at least one such in core,
> as a prototype to help us track the issues associated with loading a
> large third-party library along with a PL. The fact that we have three
> is historical, but on the other hand I believe we've seen distinct
> issues crop up from each one, so maybe only one isn't enough either.
ISTM that if that if you're willing to admit, even with caveats, that
PL/perl, PL/tcl, or PL/python doesn't "need" to be in core, then
excluding anything else from core on the basis that it doesn't need to
be there is silly. The extent to which the feature is useful to a
large number of users (or not) and the extent to which it complicates
maintenance of the code base (or not) seem like much more important
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-07-24 23:11:54|
|Subject: pg_dump vs data-only dumps vs --disable-triggers|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-07-24 20:37:09|
|Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |