Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:10:27 +0100 > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > Actually, that's why I only put the script in tools, and didn't > > > modify anything else ... I didn't figure anyone would object to it > > > being added in there, since, unlike the contrib stuff, it isn't > > > actually tied anywhere in the build infrastructure :( > > > > Sure, but people who run security scanners over source archives, for > > example, will notice it and will not know how it is tied in. > > Marc has already stated that he is o.k. with removing the offending > code. Instead of flogging him, how about we just remove the code and > mark it up for over zealousness.
I totally agree with the goal of removing split-dist. My vote goes for taking the solution of removing the script, and introducing, in the proper timing (i.e. during development, not late beta), a proper solution (probably one involving a Make rule, similar to "make dist"). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
