Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date
Msg-id 200404211534.20924.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
People:

> I almost agree, but I think things that are being actively developed to
> eventually move into the backend, like autovacuum or slony-I should be in
> contrib.  Things that aren't destined for backend integration should be
> removed though, like pgbench or dblink or whatnot.

I agree with this.   Although I point out that, per Jan, Slony does *not* fall
in this group.

From my perspective, there are 2 criteria for something being in Contrib:

1) is the module tightly tied to particular versions of PostgreSQL, so that
the version shipped with 7.4 would not work with 7.5 or with 7.3?

2) Is the module being considered for eventual incorporation into the
mainstream backend?

That being said, let us get projects.postgresql.org up and running first ...
we've hit some technical snags today.

--
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Next
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions