Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > On 05/29/2015 02:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I always liked the idea of organizing contrib along these lines. >> >> I know that I will never be successful in convincing people to remove, >> say, contrib/isn, which is total garbage, but the next best thing is >> to categorize it in a way that sets expectations very low.
> Well, contrib/isn is still useful (I use it). But there's no good > reason it couldn't be on pgxn. We already did one round of removal of low-grade contrib items. Admittedly that was in 2006, and maybe some of the stuff that survived that cut no longer looks good enough. But I don't think there's all that much low-hanging fruit there. But let's get to the point: the real reason for keeping most of these contrib modules in the core distribution is that they are essential test cases for core's extensibility features. contrib/isn is actually a good example of that. It made us realize that extensions that create types that are physically equivalent to int8 or float8 were broken when we made those types potentially pass-by-value; we had to add a CREATE TYPE option to allow that to still work (cf commit 3f936aacc057e4b3). If contrib/isn had not been around and been getting built by the buildfarm, we would have found that out only much later and with much more pain. You could imagine some other way to address that, like generalizing the buildfarm so that it can pull in extensions from other source repos for testing purposes. But that's going to be a lot of work and I'm not even real sure we want it --- it'd increase the trust problem for buildfarm owners quite a bit, for one thing. I'm not particularly on board with renaming things just to get rid of the term "contrib". We have much better things to do with our time. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers