Andrew Dunstan wrote: > But the reasons that applied to PL/Java (masses of non-C code was the > main one) probably don't apply in these 2 cases.
I don't think it's the amount of non-C code; it's the amount of code that no one understands. Plus, an argument *for* inclusion was build farm coverage, which I understand will be solved in a different way, applicable to all external modules. Another argument was buzzword compliance, which doesn't apply to these two new candidates. So in summary, while I have not seen any valid reason for these inclusions, there continue to be some against it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
