Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Agreed. Too bad you can't do this as an extension, it would allow you
> to rev releases a lot faster than once a year.
> Actually, maybe you should look at "what is the minimum patch required
> to enable a webserver extension", with the idea that most of the
> webserver code would still live outside the core? That way you could
> continue to develop it a lot faster.
+1. I think for reasons such as security, a lot of people would rather
*not* see any such thing in core anyway, independent of development
issues. It's also far from clear that there is only one desirable
behavior of this sort, so a design path that offers the possibility
of multiple webserver implementations as separate extensions seems
attractive.
regards, tom lane
