2010/2/21 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>: > > > Lucas wrote: >> >> Tom, >> >> I believe that "in core" may be "installed by default" in case of >> the pgAgent or similar solution... >> >> Many big companies does not allow the developers to configure and >> install components.... we need to request everthing in 10 copies >> of forms... >> >> By making it "in core" or "installed by default" means that we >> have more chance that the db scheduler would be widely accepted... >> > > This reasoning just doesn't fly in the PostgreSQL world. PostgreSQL is > designed to be extensible, not a monolithic product. We're not going to > change that because some companies have insane corporate policies. The > answer, as Jefferson said in another context, is to "inform their > ignorance." > > That isn't to say that there isn't a case for an in core scheduler, but this > at least isn't a good reason for it.
What I remember - this is exactly same discus like was about replication thre years ago fiirst strategy - we doesn't need it in core next we was last with replacation Regards Pavel Stehule > > 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 > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers