On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > From a maintenance point of view there seems little need > for either project to get integrated: they don't appear to have much > of any code that is tightly tied to backend innards.
This is a slightly circular argument. They have had to be written with no linkage to core to allow them to be created outside of it. I agree with your general principles on inclusion of features and also agree that in this specific case the patches should be rejected. Growing up outside of core cannot be a reason to exclude new capabilities from core, but it is probably a reason to reject specific code. In both these cases, I can see that the capability could be provided in a different way and benefit from tighter integration. I think we should return them with comments that if you integrate them more with core *and* can justify having done so, then we might include those features later. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
