On 26 September 2017 at 01:53, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-25 13:50:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > >> On 25/09/17 19:26, Tom Lane wrote: > > >>> The problem with this type of argument is that it leads directly to > the > > >>> conclusion that every feature users want must be in core. > > > > > ... I don't think that should mean that there's no possible output > > > plugin that could/should be integrated into core. > > > > Yeah, my point is just that the argument needs to be about why a > > *particular* plugin is valuable enough to justify adding it to the > > core developers' maintenance workload. > > +1 > > Yep, and that goes for plugins like pglogical too. I agree we need a json plugin, it's pretty clear that's a widespread need. But I don't buy the whole argument about "hosted postgres" issues. The hosted solutions suppliers can simply use 3rd party plugins, like some do PostGIS already. Trying to push things into core is offloading work onto us to make their lives easier and I don't much care for that. Personally I'd be more friendly toward Amazon / Google / etc wanting us to include things for their convenience if they actually usefully contributed to development and maintenance of Pg. -- Craig Ringer
