Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
От | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0404211401470.22303-100000@css120.ihs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I almost agree, but I think things that are being actively developed to eventually move into the backend, like autovacuum or slony-I should be in contrib. Things that aren't destined for backend integration should be removed though, like pgbench or dblink or whatnot. On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > My personal opinion is that contrib should be removed entirely. Just > have a contrib.txt that says all contrib modules are at pgfoundry or > whatever. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > Jan Wieck wrote: > > > Taking into account that quite a few people have repeatedly stated that > > the components in contrib are considered more supported/recommended than > > similar solutions found on gborg or any other external site, I suggest > > we move the projects dbmirror and dblink to gborg. The rserv contrib > > module seems to me to be an early Perl prototype of erserver, nobody is > > working on any more. I suggest we drop that entirely. > > > > Comments/alternatives? > > > > > > Jan > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: