From: | "Asko Oja" <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Date: | 2008-07-25 06:37:27 |
Message-ID: | ecd779860807242337y620a7b54s16cc9ed6f229d1bd@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
One of reasons to get PL/proxy into core is to make it available to Windows
users also.
The idea is to get to the situation
createlang plproxy mydb
If we can achieve this without putting plproxy into core then i would like
to hear how.
Asko
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> You are merely setting up a straw man, as no one has suggested such a
> policy. Any specific decision of this type is going to involve a
> combination of factors, and that's only one.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-25 07:16:59 | Re: Additional psql requirements |
Previous Message | Ryan Bradetich | 2008-07-25 05:46:56 | Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support. |