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

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-21 20:38:35
Message-ID: 6CB74D35-4D45-4F6A-A443-6ED485FF9F82@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jul 21, 2008, at 13:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Maybe that's the problem that really needs solving?
>
> One of the big Postgres features is its extensibility. I agree that
> the extensions can sometimes be hard to find, but surely the answer to
> that is not an infinitely large source tarball?

Oh, of course. But one thing at a time. I'm in complete agreement that
what goes into core should be pretty conservative, and that the module
problem should be addressed. But even given that, I think that there
is a strong case to be made that citext should be in contrib.

Best,

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-21 20:38:57 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2008-07-21 20:37:45 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?