Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200710102110.l9ALAHB26020@momjian.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Looking at the discussion, I think we should just keep it in /contrib. The code is tightly tied to our backend transaction system so there is logic to have it in /contrib rather than pgfoundry. I do think we should just move it into core for 8.4 though. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua D. Drake wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:02:30 +0100 > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > > > > > There are quite a few contributors that are upset that this whole > > > process went down the way that it did. I would say they are likely > > > in the majority versus the people that just want to leave it alone > > > and move on. > > > > > That means it is not complete. Which means we might as well look > > > at Concurrent psql, Table function support, bitmap scan changes, > > > and GIT as well. > > > > That's just nonsense. We need to fix our other problems too and that > > means getting substantive feedback to the authors of those patches so > > they can complete the work. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the > > current situation. > > You seem to be diverting my point. We can not provide preferential > treatment. Those patches are out there and have been out there for some > time. They followed the rules. Frankly, they deserve to be fully > reviewed and have the opportunity to be put in core *before* this > contrib patch. > > Especially since this patch has already been marked as *not complete*. > There is already discussion happening on the patch and the changes that > need to be made. > > > > > > Another option, is to push the contrib module to pgfoundry. There is > > > zero loss here to PostgreSQL that I can see, in the current state > > > of the patch. > > > > You keep saying this, do you have any justification for it? > > I believe if you read my posts I have made plenty of justification. The > simplest of course being, process wasn't followed. > > > > > I've explained why I think this code belongs in Postgres and not > > pgfoundry, did you have any counter-argument? > > I believe I have mentioned that there is an argument for it to be in > PostgreSQL. > > > > > And the complaints Tom brought up are mostly precisely the kind of > > interface issues that actually argue well for it being in contrib. > > Nothing that is in contrib can not also be maintained just as well with > pgFoundry. It just may take more proactiveness in the process. > > > It > > serves its current purpose well but future users might need binary > > i/o or subxid support and so on. Until the interface is very stable > > being in contrib makes perfect sense. > > > > I would state that until the interface is very stable pgfoundry also > makes perfect sense. > > I am getting the impression that you think that I don't *want* this > module. I do, but I do not want it at the sacrifice of other modules > and code authors who did the job the right way. > > I understand Tom's point about if we push to 8.4 that could cause > problems for Slony and Skytools. I certainly don't want to cause > problems for some very cool projects. I do however don't see those > problems existing if it was in pgFoundry. > > Or are we saying that the only way to provide quality sofware to > PostgreSQL is if it is either in core or contrib? I do not believe you > are saying that. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > > -- > > === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ > UNIQUE NOT NULL > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ > -- End of PGP section, PGP failed! -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
pgsql-hackers by date: