On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 16:07 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> > The plugin approach was suggested because it brings together so many
> use cases in one and adds missing robustness to a case where we
> already have extensibility. Extensibility is about doing things for
> specific implementations *without* needing to patch Postgres, not just
> allowing external projects to exist alongside.
>
> I think a generic plugin architecture is *too* many use cases. That is
> it's too flexible and doesn't make any promises at all of what its
> intended to do.
I agree. I don't see providing the plugin capability should prevent
provision of further features in this area. Indeed, I see it as a way of
encouraging people to write stuff for Postgres, which we then reel
slowly back into core, if it is robust enough and general purpose
enough. My model is PL/Proxy: the capability we will eventually gain in
Core will be because we gave solution designers a free hand to invent
and a free hand to overcome obstacles in months, not years. Solutions
now, better solutions later.
> I'm not sure though, your comments in the other email make me think
> there might be more to the patch that I had the impression was there.
> Will now go read the patch and see if I was mistaken.
Thank you.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
