On 9/5/06, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for
>> userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api.
>> I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short
>> term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can
>> copyright a function wrapper.
>
> Right, I see the pgfoundry project as just a backwards-compatibility
> thing for anyone who doesn't want to change their code. I'm happy to
> put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if
> someone will do the legwork to define and implement them.
hmm - that is all a nice and such - but is it really a good idea to do
this that late in the release-cycle ?
I think the most "natural" thing would be to replace the existing GPL'd
userlock code with the new one and discuss the API-change one for 8.3
and up ...
I think that's a reasonable solution, replace the existing (renamed?)
contrib with new wrappers and push core migration/documentation out to
8.3. Then we are talking about one line wrappers here, not a feature
per se...
merlin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
