Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 02:09, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
solution is where people need it to be. If not...
Don't know about the policy to put things in already-released-version
but if it's not the case, we could at least put the code somewhere in
the ftp.postgresql.org. IMHO pgfoundry project will confuse people.
Both: ftp and pgfoundry.
Putting it on pgfoundry would automatically put it in the ftp tree
(ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/pgFoundry). If it was to go on
pgfoundry (which I'd recommend) I'd suggest removing it from 8.3 contrib
before we release (cause having it in both places is really going to cause
confusion)
One of pgfoundry's explicit purposes is for backports of features. Given
that we (rightly) don't backport new features in mainline releases,
where else should they go? I don't buy the "confusing" argument. If
necessary the author can plaster big red notices in a README on the
pgfoundry release saying "don't use this past postgres version x"
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
