Dave, all: > This issue has come up before, and I opposed it then when the interfaces > were removed from the main tarball. > I really don't see the upside to reducing the size of the tarball at the > expense of ease of use. ÂSeems to me we are > bending over backwards to make it easy for people with dial up > connections to download our "enterprise class" > database.
Small tarball size isn't the *primary* reason for having our "push-it-out-to-pgFoundry" attitude, it's the *tertiary* reason. The main two reasons are: 1) If we start including everything that's "useful", where do we stop? There are enough pg add-ins to fill a CD -- 200 projects on GBorg and pgFoundry and others elsewhere. And some of them probably conflict with each other. Any decision to include some projects and not others will alienate people and possibly be a mis-evaluation; the libpq++/libpqxx mistake comes to mind. 2) As long as we're using CVS, the only way to organize autonomous project teams that have authority over their special areas but no ability to change central code is to "push out" projects to separate CVS trees. >From my perspective, putting together a coherent "distribution" of PostgreSQL with all the add-ins you want is the job of commercial distributors and possibly OSS projects like Bizgres. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match