Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely
[Posted June 9, 2015 by jake]
| From: |
| Fabien COELHO <coelho-AT-cri.ensmp.fr> |
| To: |
| Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume-AT-lelarge.info> |
| Subject: |
| Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely |
| Date: |
| Fri, 29 May 2015 08:01:37 +0200 (CEST) |
| Message-ID: |
| <alpine.DEB.2.10.1505290750050.24520@sto> |
| Cc: |
| "Joshua D. Drake" <jd-AT-commandprompt.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost-AT-snowman.net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers-AT-postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e-AT-gmx.net> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
> FWIW, I don't mind which one we put in core and which one we put out of
> core. But I like Joshua's idea of getting rid of contribs and pushing them
> out as any other extensions.
Hmmm.
I like the contrib directory as a living example of "how to do an
extension" directly available in the source tree. It also allows to test
in-tree that the extension mechanism works. So I think it should be kept
at least with a minimum set of dummy examples for this purpose, even if
all current extensions are moved out.
Also, removing a feature is a regression, and someone is always bound to
complain... What is the real benefit? ISTM that it is a solution that
fixes no important problem. Reaching a consensus about what to move here
or there will consume valuable time that could be spent on more important
tasks... Is it worth it?
Also moving things into postgresql main sources makes pg heavier for all
and benefits only to some, so I think that some careful filtering must be
done bevore moving large contribs there. I guess this is part of the
argumentation.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
