Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
От | Marc G. Fournier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040423002602.H32445@ganymede.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > No, I don't call that lazy, I call it smart. It makes use (reuse) of a > part of Postgres (the contrib build system) that is among its strengths. > Is it your goal to make it harder for people to write their own C > language functions? It makes no sense whatsoever to expect everyone who > wants to extend Postgres to develop their own build system. I'd call > that alot of duplicated effort -- effort better spent more productively. Then, like I mentined to Bruce, we should be looking at some sort of template that those developers can work off of ... downloading an 11Meg file to build a 2k module seems a wee bit excessive, no? > > No one (including me) has ever claimed it is any kind of a replication > system. It is completely different functionality. Sorry, my bad here ... I was mixing dblink with dbmirror ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: