On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 15 November 2011 21:53, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> There's a larger issue here, which is that a lot of the stuff in contrib >> is useful as (a) coding examples for people to look at, and/or (b) test >> cases for core-server functionality. If a module gets kicked out to >> PGXN we lose pretty much all the advantages of (b), and some of the >> value of (a) because stuff that is in the contrib tree at least gets >> maintained when we make server API changes. > > The isn module is patently broken. It has the potential to damage the > project's reputation if someone chooses to make an example out of it. > I think that that's more important than any additional test coverage > it may bring. There's only a fairly marginal benefit at the expense of > a bad user experience for anyone who should use isn.
I agree. The argument that this code is useful as example code has been offered before, but the justification is pretty thin when the example code is an example of a horrible design that no one should ever copy. I don't see that the isn code is doing anything that is so unique that one of our add-on data types wouldn't be a suitable (probably far better) template, but if it is, let's add similar functionality to some other module, or add a new module that does whatever that interesting thing is, or shove some code in src/test/examples. We can't go on complaining one the one hand that people don't install postgresql-contrib, and then on the other hand insist on shipping really bad code in contrib. It's asking a lot for someone who isn't already heavily involved in the project to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
