Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> But the reasons that applied to PL/Java (masses of non-C code was the
> main one) probably don't apply in these 2 cases.
I don't think it's the amount of non-C code; it's the amount of code
that no one understands. Plus, an argument *for* inclusion was build
farm coverage, which I understand will be solved in a different way,
applicable to all external modules. Another argument was buzzword
compliance, which doesn't apply to these two new candidates. So in
summary, while I have not seen any valid reason for these inclusions,
there continue to be some against it.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
