2010/2/21 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>:
>
>
> Lucas wrote:
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> I believe that "in core" may be "installed by default" in case of
>> the pgAgent or similar solution...
>>
>> Many big companies does not allow the developers to configure and
>> install components.... we need to request everthing in 10 copies
>> of forms...
>>
>> By making it "in core" or "installed by default" means that we
>> have more chance that the db scheduler would be widely accepted...
>>
>
> This reasoning just doesn't fly in the PostgreSQL world. PostgreSQL is
> designed to be extensible, not a monolithic product. We're not going to
> change that because some companies have insane corporate policies. The
> answer, as Jefferson said in another context, is to "inform their
> ignorance."
>
> That isn't to say that there isn't a case for an in core scheduler, but this
> at least isn't a good reason for it.
What I remember - this is exactly same discus like was about
replication thre years ago
fiirst strategy - we doesn't need it in core
next we was last with replacation
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
