On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I've got to say that this is somewhat reminicient of the discussions around > in-core pooling, where argument 1 is applied to justify excluding pooling > from core/contrib. > > I don't have a strong position on whether a DTM should be in core or not as > I haven't done enough work in the area. I do think it's interesting to > strongly require that a DTM be in core while we also reject things like > pooling that are needed by a large proportion of users.
I don't remember this discussion, but I don't think I feel differently about either of these two issues. I'm not opposed to having some hooks in core to make it easier to build a DTM, but I'm not convinced that these hooks are the right hooks or that the design underlying those hooks is correct. And, eventually, I would like to see a DTM in core or contrib so that it can be accessible to everyone relatively easily. Now, on connection pooling, I am similarly not opposed to having some well-designed hooks, but I also think in the long run it would be better for some improvements in this area to be part of core. None of that means I would support any particular hook proposal, of course. -- 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
