On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 12:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Code outside of core, is, in reality, less reviewed, less likely to work > > well with recent PG versions, and more likely to cause problems. It's also > > less likely to be found by people, less likely to be used by people, and > > less likely to be included by distros. Not to say that everything should get > > shoved into core, of course, but there are strong arguments for both sides. > > These are all true statements, of course, but ISTM they should be looked > on as problems to be solved. Pushing stuff into core instead of solving > these problems is not a scalable long-term answer.
And being in core does in no way guarantee reviews and updates if stuff changes in the backend, as long as regression tests pass - as a proof take a look at pl/python ugliness. it has not been updated in any major way since it was first written and so does not make use of any newer ways of writing PLs. I am currently working on get this fixed, looking, ironically, much at pl/proxy code to do so. I was away from net for last 3 weeks, (climbed mt. Elbrus) but I'll get my patches brushed up in 2-3 weeks to bring pl/python on par with other PLs. OTOH, until we have solid foundation for believing that we can move all (or at least most) PLs out of core, I'd like pl/proxy to be "in the core", at least "being in the core CVS" sense. -------------- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
