Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 470CE866.7030205@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytoolsextended transaction ID module to contrib as (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended
transaction ID module to contrib as
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat wrote: > On Wednesday 10 October 2007 02:09, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira 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... >>>> >>> Don't know about the policy to put things in already-released-version >>> but if it's not the case, we could at least put the code somewhere in >>> the ftp.postgresql.org. IMHO pgfoundry project will confuse people. >>> >> Both: ftp and pgfoundry. >> > > Putting it on pgfoundry would automatically put it in the ftp tree > (ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/pgFoundry). 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) > > One of pgfoundry's explicit purposes is for backports of features. Given that we (rightly) don't backport new features in mainline releases, where else should they go? I don't buy the "confusing" argument. If necessary the author can plaster big red notices in a README on the pgfoundry release saying "don't use this past postgres version x" cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: