Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date
Msg-id 4086BA6E.70105@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

My personal opinion is that contrib should be removed entirely. Just 
have a contrib.txt that says all contrib modules are at pgfoundry or 
whatever.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


Jan Wieck wrote:

> Taking into account that quite a few people have repeatedly stated that 
> the components in contrib are considered more supported/recommended than 
> similar solutions found on gborg or any other external site, I suggest 
> we move the projects dbmirror and dblink to gborg. The rserv contrib 
> module seems to me to be an early Perl prototype of erserver, nobody is 
> working on any more. I suggest we drop that entirely.
> 
> Comments/alternatives?
> 
> 
> Jan
> 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions