Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> This reasoning just doesn't fly in the PostgreSQL world. PostgreSQL is
>> designed to be extensible, not a monolithic product. We're not going to
>> change that because some companies have insane corporate policies. The
>> answer, as Jefferson said in another context, is to "inform their
>> ignorance."
>>
>> That isn't to say that there isn't a case for an in core scheduler, but this
>> at least isn't a good reason for it.
>>
>
> What I remember - this is exactly same discus like was about
> replication thre years ago
>
> fiirst strategy - we doesn't need it in core
> next we was last with replacation
>
>
That's a pretty poor analogy IMNSHO. There are very good technical
reasons to have replication in the core. That is much less clear for a
scheduler. But in any case, I didn't say that we shouldn't have a
scheduler. I specifically said there might be a case for it - read the
first clause of my last sentence. What I said was that the reason given,
namely that Corporations didn't want to use add-on modules, was not a
good reason.
cheers
andrew
