On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 18:38 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 17:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > In the case of plproxy, I think an integrated solution is pronounced
> > "SQL-MED", and likewise plproxy in its present form doesn't move us
> > toward that goal.
> I'm pretty sure that there is no general golden-bullet solution for
> achieving this, and thus I can't see how pl/proxy can conflict with any
> "long-term goals" in "these areas", for any value of "these areas".
>
> pl/proxy also has some other possible uses, like doing callbacks in
> independent transactions, simple remote calls, simple RO load balancing,
> etc.
Hannu,
These are all excellent points but I think the real problem here is:
There is nothing that requires pl/proxy to be in core.
Everyone already agrees pl/proxy is very cool technology for PostgreSQL.
I used to make a lot of arguments about pushing things into core, I was
big fanboy of getting Tsearch2 into core. Looking back and getting older
and wiser (no laughing :P) I realize that its almost kind of silly to
keep pushing this stuff into core.
Lots of people talk about legitimacy of the package or some sort of
artificial endorsement that gets created by being in core. Some of it is
personal, it is a big feeling of pride to have a piece of code accepted
to core. It is also a way to beef up the resume and yes generally a way
to deal with more ignorant hosting shops that won't install external
modules.
However this is not a core problem. It is not a hacker problem. It is
and education and advocacy problem. We don't need pl/proxy in core. What
pl/proxy needs is a solid project of its own, with good documentation,
and community members.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
