"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial
>> implementation..
> No disagreement there; but sometimes it pays to know where you might
> want to go, so you don't do something to make further development in
> that direction unnecessarily difficult.
I think that setting out to reimplement rsync, or to go down a design
path where we're likely to do a lot of that eventually, is the height
of folly. We should be standing on the shoulders of other projects,
not rolling our own because of misguided ideas about people not having
those projects installed.
IOW, what I'd like to see is protocol extensions that allow an external
copy of rsync to be invoked; not build in rsync, or tar, or anything
else that we could get off-the-shelf.
regards, tom lane
