-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Besides, proof that it would do no extra harm is hardly a strong
> argumet for including it. Given how easy it is to add it to any DB
> that needs it, I fail to see why we should add it by default.
Because we're not talking about people who have access to a psql
command line.
> Personally I would like to see more things removed from PG and have
> them added as modules when required.
Yes, that will do wonders for our mindshare and adoption rate.
(Dave Page)
>> I know I'm gonna regret wading in on this, but in my mind this is akin
>> to one of the arguments for including tsearch in the core server -
>> namely that too many brain dead hosting providers won't add a contrib
>> module or anything else in a customer's database because they don't
(D'Arcy)
> So their clients will go somewhere <PLUG URL="http://www.Vex.Net/" />
> that does understand what they are installing and can support their
> users properly. How far are we supposed to go to support the clueless?
Clueless is rather a harsh word to throw out. There's a spectrum of
Postgres users - from backend hackers that install Postgres via
cvs HEAD, to people who do a "yum install", to people who are using
an app which uses Postgres in the backend, and who are barely aware that
Postgres is being used. Supporting them all is a balancing act, but
things like putting tsearch2 in core is absolutely a step in the
right direction.
> And the first time someone uses pl/pgsql to do harm, even if it is due
> to their mis-configuration, who gets blamed?
The person who did the harm perhaps? This just seems unnecessary FUD.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200802221147
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAke+/QUACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgWlgCdElnDyCKvoD57Oz7UyqIw1hJe
wsYAn3u54vmDAt4qRNlI08A7w3dj2b7q
=IJzq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
