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

From Matthew T. O'Connor
Subject Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date
Msg-id 4086C32E.70106@zeut.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> 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.


I'm not so sure that's a good idea.  I think contrib is a good 
repository for code that is tightly tied to the backend, or provides 
extentions to the backen, or is something that will eventually be 
integrated into the backend, but just isn't ready for prime time yet 
(pg_autovacuum for example).  The value of contrib is exposure.  I 
firmly believe that pg_autovacuum would not have gotten as much testing 
from gborg as it has from contrib.

Perhaps the definition of what should be in contrib should be tightened 
down, and anything that doesn't meet that definition should be removed, 
but I think contrib is a good concept.

Matthew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: valgrind errors
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions