On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:28 +0000, Greg Stark wrote: > The only advantage that remains, I think, is the real-world concern > that you can have proprietary plugins
How exactly is this plugin more likely to result in a proprietary plugin than all of the other plugin types we have? Because I suggest it?? I find it quite amazing that anybody would think I proposed a patch whose "only advantage" lay in commercial exploitation, implying that I intend that. But at least you had the courage to write it, allowing me to answer, so actually I'll say thank you for raising that point: ** I have no plans for selling software that has been enabled by this patch. ** The plugin approach was suggested because it brings together so many use cases in one and adds missing robustness to a case where we already have extensibility. Extensibility is about doing things for specific implementations *without* needing to patch Postgres, not just allowing external projects to exist alongside. -- 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
