On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 02:42:45PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 29 May 2015 at 02:50, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > On 5/28/15 3:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > What we would need for this is an 'extensions' directory, or similar, > > and a clear definition of what the requirements are around getting into > > it are. With that, we could decide for each module currently in contrib > > if it should go into the 'extensions' directory. I'm not sure that we > > would necessairly have to remove the contrib module or any modules which > > are deemed to not be appropriate for the 'extensions' directory. > > This seems reasonable to me. It's in line with the recent move from > contrib to bin. It'll just be quite a bit bigger of an undertaking. > (50 threads to discuss the merits of each module separately?) Maybe > start by picking the top 5 and sort those out. > > > +1 for Extensions directory for 9.6 > > This doesn't seem worth delaying the release for.
I didn't think any of this was for 9.5 consideration. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
