David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, I think in our case that would be going too far. I think there
is a very good case for keeping a few key extensions in core both as
exemplars and to make it easy to validate the extension mechanism
itself. There have been suggestions in the past about throwing a
bunch of things overboard, sometimes out of a passion for neatness
more than anything else ISTM, but there have been good arguments
against as well, particularly in the case of the PLs, which are tied
so closely to the backend.
Exemplars are good if they behave in the same way as non-core
extensions. So it might be good for the core to maintain contrib
extensions, although I would urge them to keep the size down quite
low, and to be very conservative about adding new extensions. Part of
the issue Perl ran into is that it was too liberal about adding new
stuff to core, especially modules with large dependency trees.
Anything in core should be kept very simple, both to avoid bloat and
to minimize the maintenance overhead for the core team.
We have been conservative about this in the past and there is no reason
to expect we will not be in the future. If anything, we are likely to
become more so.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
