On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Robert Treat wrote:
>>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>> I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
>>>> solution is where people need it to be. If not...
>
> If it was to go on pgfoundry (which I'd recommend) I'd suggest removing
> it from 8.3 contrib before we release (cause having it in both places is
> really going to cause confusion)
There is a perception that code in contrib, while not essential, has at
least been reviewed by core to some degree and therefore is relatively
safe to install. I've listened to people state that they're not
installing code from some random pgfoundry package on the production
system in a meeting, while contrib code was considered perfectly
acceptable.
pg_standby has such a wide potential audience that I'd hate to see it
viewed as second-class code in this fashion were it moved to pgfoundry and
pulled out of the 8.3 contrib. If the concern is to avoid confusion, I'd
suggest clearly labeling the foundry project something like "pg_standby
8.2 backport", so people know it's aimed at being stable when run against
an 8.2 server; that would make it obvious it's not intended for 8.3
systems as well.
Right now I've been suggesting people use the version that comes with 8.3,
but I get the feeling not everyone is comfortable with that; having a
release specifically labeled 8.2 compatible would be a help. Like Simon,
I'd _like_ to see it show up in the 8.2 contrib, but as that goes against
the project's stable version policies I don't expect that to happen.
Having a "backport" (which may be the same code) as a pgfoundry project,
with the understanding that it comes with the base contrib in 8.3, would
help clear some of the concerns about the quality of the code I've run
into. Pushing the entire thing onto pgfoundry will make it even harder to
get certain type of corporate customers to use pg_standby, which is a
clear step backwards as far as I'm concerned.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
