Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 2/18/11 3:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> postgresql_fdw may have to live as an external project for the 9.1
>> cycle, unless it's in much better shape than you suggest above.
>> I won't feel too bad about that as long as the core support exists.
>> More than likely, people would want to improve it on a faster release
>> cycle than the core anyway.
> FDWs seem like perfect candidates for Extensions. We'll eventually want
> postgresql_fdw in core, but most FDWs will never be there.
Yeah, agreed as to both points. I would imagine that we'd absorb
postgresql_fdw into core late in the 9.2 devel cycle, which would still
leave quite a few months where it could be improved on a rapid release
cycle.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
