Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org>
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2004-04-23T03:27:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > No, I don't call that lazy, I call it smart. It makes use (reuse) of a > part of Postgres (the contrib build system) that is among its strengths. > Is it your goal to make it harder for people to write their own C > language functions? It makes no sense whatsoever to expect everyone who > wants to extend Postgres to develop their own build system. I'd call > that alot of duplicated effort -- effort better spent more productively. Then, like I mentined to Bruce, we should be looking at some sort of template that those developers can work off of ... downloading an 11Meg file to build a 2k module seems a wee bit excessive, no? > > No one (including me) has ever claimed it is any kind of a replication > system. It is completely different functionality. Sorry, my bad here ... I was mixing dblink with dbmirror ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664