Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/2/21 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>:
> >> ? ?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
We resisted putting replication into the core until we needed some
facilities that were only available from the core.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.comPG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard
drive,Christ can be your backup. +
