Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 10:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
One of pgfoundry's explicit purposes is for backports of features.

I can't think of any contrib modules we've added that also required
backwards comptible modules to be released on foundry at the same
time.  ISTM that such a requirement would be an argument that such a
thing doesn't belong in contrib at all.

AFAICT there isn't any market for a backport of txid.  Slony won't
depend on it before their next release, which will require PG >= 8.3
for other reasons.  Skytools already has an internal version in their
existing releases.  And the code won't work before PG 8.2 so any
backport couldn't go very far anyway.

So while Andrew's statement is true in general, I don't think
it's very relevant to a consideration of what to do with txid.


The context of this quote was referring to pg_standby, not txid.

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if we had not had a horribly long period beween feature freeze and beta. We'd be way past the stage where anyone would consider adding something to contrib or anywhere else. The only cure I can see for that is that we need much more stringent criteria for what is a candidate to make the cut. I know I committed things that really weren't ready when I got hold of them, and required a lot of work to get them anything like ready. Arguably that didn't matter because they weren't on the critical path, but I think all projects need to be handled equitably. I'm sure Tom faced the same problem I did ten times over.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to