Forwarded to -hackers.

Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Again, I guess it comes down to what we're willing to let go.  If we
want new users who want certain functionality in the system to be
happy, we include it.  Otherwise, we do as we do now, keeping tons of
projects on pgfoundry and hoping a user doesn't just pass us by
because they installed PostgreSQL and didn't see the things they
want/need in the core.  Of course, this will last until MySQL goes
ahead and adds a Java PL and the user doesn't even glance over at
us... but I guess that falls back to the argument of, "what kind of
user do we really want".  Almost everyone here who's ever done
real-world consulting on PostgreSQL has run into PL/Java at some point
in time, so it is used and used often.


Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a
distribution that is more "and the kitchen sink" style. I do not know
exactly if Bizgres could be considered just that? Or maybe it could get
promoted to be that?

What I mean is I think it makes absolute sense to keep a very stable,
very well maintained core PostgreSQL distribution which is that anyone
should base their distributions on. However I do think that PostgreSQL
is missing out in getting new users aboard that are in the early stages
of evalutation and simply only consider features that they get along
with a default installation (mostly due to lack of better knowledge
about places like pgfoundry). For these kinds of users it would make
sense to provide a distro that has an extended feature list, while
sacrificing maybe a tiny bit of stability because it adds modules that
do not adhere to the same high level of maintaince as PostgreSQL core does.

regards,
Lukas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

              http://archives.postgresql.org

Reply via email to