FW: [pgadmin-hackers] FW: adminpack and pg_catalog

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgadmin-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgadmin-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Dave Page
> Sent: 21 October 2006 21:20
> To: PgAdmin Hackers
> Subject: [pgadmin-hackers] FW: [HACKERS] adminpack and pg_catalog
>
>
> [Ooops, forgot to CC the list]

And then got the wrong one. D'oh!!


> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:18:42 +0100
> To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
> Conversation: [HACKERS] adminpack and pg_catalog
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] adminpack and pg_catalog
>
>
>
>
> On 21/10/06 12:13, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >> Well as adminpack is specifcally and primarily written to support
> >> pgAdmin, deliberately breaking it for current and older releases of
> >> pgAdmin does seem like a *really* dopey thing to do. So
> yeah, I would
> >> prefer it was removed than broken, even if to the annoyance of the
> >> packagers and users that bugged us to get it included in the first
> >> place.
> >
> > I understand that randomly breaking it is not the way to go.
> >
> > But how it this going to continue?  A new pgAdmin release might
> > conceivably want to add or change the adminpack.
>
> I think that's unlikely, but yes, it's possible.
>
> > Will that have to
> > wait for a new server release.
>
> PgAdmin is released on virtually the same timetable as
> PostgreSQL - it has
> to be to sync up the docs and levels of support in the
> Windows pgInstaller
> distro, so that's not an issue.
>
> > Given the understanding that adminpack
> > is specifically for pgAdmin support, I don't see any advantage in
> > shipping it with the server, the buggers notwithstanding.
>
> The message we've consistently had from both packagers of
> PostgreSQL and
> users is that the module should be included in /contrib and
> not pgAdmin,
> precisely because it is a server side module, and many people don't
> necessarily want to install pgAdmin, or bits of it separately on their
> servers. We here the same argument about pgAgent from time to
> time, but that
> isn't really a candidate for inclusion in /contrib due to it's current
> reliance on wxWidgets - otherwise I'd be arguing to get that
> included as
> well.
>
> Regards, Dave
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
>