Tom Lane wrote:
>Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>
>>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>First, I *really* wish we'd call it something else. Contrib conveys
>>>"unsupported" to people.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>And that's exactly what it is supposed to mean. We say, these modules
>>do not necessarily meet our standards with regard to code quality,
>>portability, user interfaces, internationalization, documentation, etc.
>>There is certainly a lot of good software in contrib and one could in
>>individual cases consider moving them out of there, but contrib is what
>>it is.
>>
>>
>
>Which is as it should be, I think. Contrib is essentially the "not
>quite ready for prime time" area. If it were 100% up to speed then
>it'd be in the core backend already ... while if we required it to be
>100% in advance, then it'd not have gotten out there in the first place.
>
>The real issue seems to be that we have a disconnect between what is
>presently in contrib and what is on gborg or pgfoundry. There are
>certainly many contrib modules that are only there on seniority: if
>they were submitted today then they'd have gotten put on pgfoundry.
>But I'm not sure that there's much value in an enforced cleanup.
>
>
I think there probably is. Too much in there looks just abandoned. On
the flip side, I know we're dealing with the pg_autovacuum issue, but we
get lots of queries about crypto functions and text search because
people don't know they are in contrib.
BTW, I note that the TODO list has these delightfully non-specific items:
* Move some things from /contrib into main tree * Move some /contrib modules out to their own project sites
cheers
andrew
