Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:32:55 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely
Message-ID: <20150605123255.GC26667@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1505290750050.24520@sto>
 <55686D84.4040202@commandprompt.com>
 <20150529143026.GV26667@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CA+Tgmoa+hEZUmXCp+KqsZdMRdRVM36KgWNqd-momdmKVd-UU9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5570739E.3020605@commandprompt.com>
 <CA+TgmoY3VW=tdPx1AsHW1LOnztojkGxLfVXLiW5AoOPTqs=5ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <55709181.1010807@commandprompt.com>
 <CA+TgmobcZ8YHeY=L-Z6pRpane7iMZXZERjQuiSQ_wAZiamgFjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <55709A0B.1000605@commandprompt.com>
 <CA+Tgmob6EShOAUc-be9OXOvTA9VhovqOdLuZ-_V=xXobgLh9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WQSgbNw0wznN2XtS"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+Tgmob6EShOAUc-be9OXOvTA9VhovqOdLuZ-_V=xXobgLh9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--WQSgbNw0wznN2XtS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Robert,

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wr=
ote:
> > 1. 15 years of the same argument (current source: pg_audit)
>=20
> The argument about pg_audit has little to do with contrib.  It is
> primarily about code quality, and secondarily about whether one
> committer can go do something unliterally when a long list of other
> committers and contributors have expressed doubts about it.

I would certainly welcome any further review or comments regarding the
code quality of pg_audit from anyone interested in the capability.  I do
not agree that the code quality is significantly below that of other
modules or core.  There were design restrictions due to it being an
extension which quite a few people had questions and concerns about,
which I addressed through the discussions on the list.

Further, pg_audit was originally presented by 2ndQ, worked on by
multiple major contributors and committers, and had multiple committers
expressing interest in committing it during the push to close out the
final CF for 9.5.  I understand that I've been the one who has primairly
been spending time discussing it on the lists, but I was also one of the
biggest nay-sayers of it over the summer last year.  What changed my
opinion of it?  The point made by other committers that the upgrade
concerns could be addressed and the strong interest from users in the
capability.

Painting it as the unilateral actions of one committer is uncharitable,
at best.

	Thanks!

		Stephen

--WQSgbNw0wznN2XtS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=lCml
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WQSgbNw0wznN2XtS--