Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marc G. Fournier
Subject Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date
Msg-id 20040423002602.H32445@ganymede.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote:

> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> No, I don't call that lazy, I call it smart. It makes use (reuse) of a
> part of Postgres (the contrib build system) that is among its strengths.
> Is it your goal to make it harder for people to write their own C
> language functions? It makes no sense whatsoever to expect everyone who
> wants to extend Postgres to develop their own build system. I'd call
> that alot of duplicated effort -- effort better spent more productively.

Then, like I mentined to Bruce, we should be looking at some sort of
template that those developers can work off of ... downloading an 11Meg
file to build a 2k module seems a wee bit excessive, no?
>
> No one (including me) has ever claimed it is any kind of a replication
> system. It is completely different functionality.

Sorry, my bad here ... I was mixing dblink with dbmirror ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions