Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Ron Mayer wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Tom Lane wrote: > >>> as having better system support for packages or modules or > >>> whatever you want to call them; and maybe we also need some > >>> marketing-type.... > >> > >> ...re-raise the question of getting rid of contrib... > >> "The PostgreSQL Standard Modules". > > > > While renaming, could we go one step further and come up with a > > clear definition of what it takes for something to qualify as > > a module? In particular I think standardizing the installation > > would go a long way to letting packagers automate the installation > > of modules from pgfoundry. > > > > I think it'd be especially cool if one could one-day have a command > > > > pg_install_module [modulename] -d [databasename] > > > > and it would magically get (or verify that it had) the latest > > version from pgfoundry; compile it (if needed) and install it > > in the specified database. > > > > The closest analogy to what I'm thinking is the perl CPAN or ruby > > gems. > > > > Yes, and the CPAN analogy that has been in several minds, but it only > goes so far. Perl and Ruby are languages - Postgres is a very > different animal. > > We do in fact have some support for building / installing some > modules in a standard way. It's called pgxs and it is used by quite a > number of existing modules.
On Windows we also have the StackBuilder application which is used for installation of binary modules. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers