Re: Policy for Abandoned Extensions

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Policy for Abandoned Extensions
Date: 2026-10-11 16:57:31
Message-ID: 7E0F4159-7200-4821-A1DC-0158723969C4@justatheory.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Oct 10, 2026, at 14:02, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Yeah, if the replacement maintainer is malicious or even merely
> incompetent, things could be worse than leaving the extension alone.
> But that wasn't on David's list of worries, so I imagine he thinks
> that's a soluble problem.

Oh I worry about it, but it was implied, because it’s bigger than just abandoned extensions, as the xz case makes clear.

D

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2026-10-11 16:58:18 Re: Policy for Abandoned Extensions
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2026-10-11 16:56:32 Re: Policy for Abandoned Extensions