On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> A lot of people are not willing to put stuff labeled "contrib" on >>> their production boxes. >>> >>> And as Tom says, even we *ourselves* acknowledge that things in >>> /contrib are held to a lower standard. If we put that label on >>> pg_migrator, it doesn't exactly signal people that this is something >>> they should use on their critical database. > >> Well, I guess that begs the question... IS this something they should >> use on their critical database? > > Not unless it gets some serious testing during the 9.0 beta cycle. > Which it surely won't get if it's not included in the core tarball. > > I think that having it in contrib for a release cycle or so would be > exactly the right approach, actually. Peter's position that it should > be in /bin is fine *once the bugs are out*. Just dropping it there > doesn't make the bugs go away.
I think in the previous iteration of this discussion I had the impression that you felt that it wasn't really to the point where it even met our standards for /contrib (although, admittedly, it seems those are pretty darn low, at least as far as the stuff that's already in there goes). If I misunderstood or if that that's no longer your feeling then maybe it makes sense. But I don't think we should do it at this point unless it's as simple as "check it in and ship it". If doing this seems likely to make 9.0 take longer to get out the door, then I think we should wait and do it in 9.1 instead. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
