On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 18:06 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 1) If we start including everything that's "useful", where do we stop? There
> are enough pg add-ins to fill a CD -- 200 projects on GBorg and pgFoundry and
> others elsewhere. And some of them probably conflict with each other. Any
> decision to include some projects and not others will alienate people and
> possibly be a mis-evaluation; the libpq++/libpqxx mistake comes to mind.
Mmm, just think of it. If enough projects get into core maybe, just
maybe, pg could compete with mozilla for the longest build time.
Wouldn't that be nice. ;)
[snip some stuff that I agree with]
With regards to PLs, there is a good argument for having them in core:
the volatility of the backend's APIs make it difficult to externally
maintain. I know this is the case, first hand. Although, if dynamically
loaded extensions are to be allowed, I think that that volatility should
be seen as a problem, and not so much as a reason to keep things in the
same tree. While I understand that it's likely to be difficult to give
interversion [source] compatibility without sacrificing general
improvement, I think it would be a good goal to have.
...
I asked on IRC and I'm still curious, does PG have a API styling
standard/guide? I see formatting and info about error messages, but
nothing about function/global/typedef naming.
--
Regards, James William Pye
