Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YySF4-00024F-Q0 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 21:55:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YySF4-0008RD-Ax for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 21:55:02 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YySF2-0008R5-WF for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 21:55:01 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YySEz-0005ux-NK for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 21:55:00 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4TLsp1C005373; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:54:51 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Josh Berkus , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely In-reply-to: References: <55674016.80005@commandprompt.com> <5568B43E.5030003@agliodbs.com> <5568D5A4.3020002@agliodbs.com> <4946.1432935300@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Fri, 29 May 2015 14:51:42 -0700" Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:54:51 -0400 Message-ID: <5372.1432936491@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Peter Geoghegan writes: > The problem here is that these ranges are controlled by a > decentralized patchwork of national standards bodies, and the ranges > are always subject to revision. I think that it's egregious that > contrib/isn imagines it can track that with a static array. Well, that module has already been rewritten once (which proves that there's an audience out there for it). Perhaps somebody will rewrite it again to support a non-hardwired set of ranges. Now that we have the concept of an extension configuration table, that'd be one possible way to fix it ... 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