Horton

Re: Core Extensions relocation

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

View thread
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-11-18T20:36:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Updates to contrib/isn ISBN tables.

  2. Add a "LIKE = typename" clause to CREATE TYPE for base types. This allows

On 11/18/11 12:27 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Why do you figure that, exactly?  The path of least resistance will
>> be precisely to leave everything packaged as it is, in a single
>> postgresql-contrib module.  I'm pretty likely to do that myself for
>> Fedora and RHEL.  Subdividing/rearranging contrib makes the packager's
>> life more complicated, *and* makes his users' lives more complicated,
>> if only because things aren't where they were before.  It seems unlikely
>> to happen, at least in the near term.
> 
> Then if we want packagers to move, what about removing all the
> extensions not listed by Greg from the contrib/ directory and inventing
> another place where to manage them, which is not automatically built,
> but still part of buildfarm tests, if at all possible.

Actually, the whole idea is that the "Core Management Extensions" should
move from the -contrib module to the -server module.  That is, those
extensions should always get installed with any server.

Of course, packagers may then reasonably ask why that code is not just
part of the core?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com