On Jul 21, 2008, at 12:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
In the specific cases of pl/proxy and citext, they are very much in
line with what we already package with the core code, including
things like dblink, ISN, and CIDR. citext in particular would
eliminate a long-time newbie complaint about Postgres, but not if
it's in an add-in package which the user can't find binaries for.
So I would argue "maybe" on pl/proxy, but that citext does belong in
core.
This is my view, as well. If it was in contrib, it'd go a long way
toward addressing a commonly-requested feature, whereas things are
much more difficult to find on pgFoundry. pgFoundry ain't the CPAN,
alas. Even if users do find it in pgFoundry, the fact that it isn't in
core is more likely to be seen as a red flag at this point. One might
ask, why isn't it in core? What's wrong with it? Why is something that
seems so useful relegated to pgFoundry? What's the usual quality of
code on pgFoundry?
Thanks for your consideration!
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
