Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2010/2/21 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>: > >> ? ?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
We resisted putting replication into the core until we needed some facilities that were only available from the core. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
