On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > On 11/10/2010 07:51 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> The current name causes constant confusion. It's a significant misnomer, >>> and >>> leads people to distrust the code. There might be reasons not to change, >>> but >>> you should at least recognize why the suggestion is being made. >> >> Is it your position that contrib code is as well-vetted as core code? > > A damn sight more than it used to be. I claim a bit of credit for that - > before the buildfarm existed it was quite poorly tested, but we can't get > away with that any more. (Ditto PLs and ECPG once we added those into the > buildfarm mix.) Of course, there are odd corners in the code. But hstore, > for example, has just had a major makeover, and pgcrypto is pretty well > maintained. Some other modules are less well loved. There are a few small > bits of the core code that have cobwebs too.
Fair enough. I think overall our code quality is good, and, over time, it's probably risen both within and outside core. Still, I think renaming contrib would likely be a lot more hassle than it's worth, and I don't think it would do much to remove the central issue, which is that installing extensions is a pain in the neck. Dimitri's work will help with that somewhat, but there's still that nasty business of needing to update shared_preload_libraries and bounce the server, at least for some modules. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
