On 03.03.2011 18:30, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
I think that it's not a good idea to devote too much energy to this
problem right now, anyway. [ we need to get to beta ASAP, instead ]
I hear you, but once we get to beta, or even the last alpha, it's going
to be very hard to make changes that would interfere with people doing
upgrades or dump/restores. If we don't do something about the language-
as-extension situation right now, the window will be closed until 9.2.
So what? AFAIK the extension patch hasn't broken anything here that
used to work. People can still install languages the way they always
have. What we're talking about here is a way of installing languages
that is arguably nicer than what they are doing now.
IMHO the main advantage of having languages as extensions is that you
could define a dependency on a language.
We've been talking about PLs, but what about the other thing David
asked: could we have extension entries for compile-time options like SSL
or libxml, so that you could define a dependency on them?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
