On Monday 06 November 2006 13:12, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:02 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 22:59 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >> Nothing except initdb should add objects in pg_catalog. AFAICS,
> > >> adminpack doesn't have any special requirements, so it should behave
> > >> like all other contrib modules.
> > >
> > > Where are we on this? When this topic was last discussed, the three
> > > alternatives were:
> > >
> > > (1) Modify contrib/adminpack to not use the pg_catalog schema,
> > > per the consensus that contrib/ packages installing objects
> > > into that schema is broken behavior
> > >
> > > (2) Don't modify contrib/adminpack, for the sake of backward
> > > compatibility
> > >
> > > (3) Remove contrib/adminpack from the Postgres distribution
> > >
> > > I think the discussion was edging toward #3, but #2 is the only option
> > > that I'm not happy with. Any other opinions out there?
> >
> > Looking back over the thread, it appears that only you and Peter
> > objected to it as it is now. Tom, Andreas and myself were of the opinion
> > it was fine as it is, and whilst he didn't comment on how it should be
> > implemented, Simon made the point that supporting admin tools from the
> > core distribution was important which I take to mean he is against #3.
>
> Definitely against #3. [Argument: not just pgAdmin, essential feature]
>
While I don't disagree that this is an important feature, the fact that it is
being designed with pgadmin specific backwards compatability (for example the
functions that rename core functions) leaves me dubious as to it being a more
general solution. Because of that I would be comfortable with acting on #3.
Now, if I ignore the above, and focus on that I would like to see this
functionality because it helps me with phppgadmin, then I would lean toward
#1 (for a number of reasons really)
Personally I think I'd rather see the whole thing pulled, renamed to its own
schema, and toss in a version function and a kill backend function and let it
go on its merry way... in any case #2 just seems to be the worst of all
possibilities.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
