"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have no problem with pushing out any part of contrib that doesn't seem
>> tightly tied to the core server.
> Can I suggest that we focus on PLs first and foremost, since that will
> allow us to get stuff like pl/PHP, pl/Java, pl/J(?), and pl/R in place,
> and then ramp up other stuff as time permits?
Agreed.
> Do we want to consider adding in a "mirror" of the JDBC/ODBC stuff in the
> same way?
I would vote not, since those projects are the exact opposite of the PLs
in terms of the degree of coupling with the backend. Not only do they
not care at all about backend internal APIs, but they go out of their
way to work with multiple backend versions, and so their release cycles
aren't tied to the core. We pushed JDBC/ODBC out of the core for good
reasons and I don't see adding them back in.
This is not to say that we might not want to adjust our distribution
setup so that it's easier for people to find 'em --- that is, we could
put JDBC/ODBC tarballs on the main ftp servers. But I don't see the
need for any coupling inside CVS.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(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
