Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Sabino Mullane
Subject Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date
Msg-id 0057334c721cf5d3253dc2f7ed354abb@biglumber.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  ("Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


> Do you want Tom to
> a) spend a month improving the optimizer
> b) get him to review already working code so we can package things

Actually, if the alternative is having the pieces outside of core where
Tom never sees them, I'd vote for (b), as the optimizer already kicks ass
but having Tom review other code is pretty invaluable.

Code outside of core, is, in reality, less reviewed, less likely to work
well with recent PG versions, and more likely to cause problems. It's also
less likely to be found by people, less likely to be used by people, and
less likely to be included by distros. Not to say that everything should get
shoved into core, of course, but there are strong arguments for both sides.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200807231145
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkiHUlgACgkQvJuQZxSWSshURACg2MIfdH0cJOTf75HmuGEzlxo6
OBQAn21sqZ+rBEel1cf2dAIYpoWPHwW5
=Pj7J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10
Next
From: Kenneth Marshall
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving