Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> I for one wonder why we even have PGXS support in contrib at all. It's >> not documented or tested anywhere, so it might as well not exist.
> I think I did about the same comment back when cooking the extension > patch, and the answer then was all about providing PGXS usage examples. > Now if none of the buildfarm animals are actually building our contribs > out of tree, maybe we should just remove those examples. > The cost of keeping them is that they double-up the Makefile content and > lots of users do think they need their extension's Makefile to be > structured the same. The common effect before the extension availability > was for people to provide extensions that would only build in tree. > I don't want to kill cleaning up those Makefiles, but I still want to > make a strong correlation in between that point and providing core > maintained extensions. I don't think extensions should have support for > being built in-tree at all. > My proposal: paint them extension rather than contrib modules, then > cleanup Makefiles so as to stop building them in-tree. [ Sigh... ] Why this eagerness to fix what isn't broken? Leave the Makefiles alone. They're not broken and they provide useful examples, plus a sense of continuity between in-tree and not-in-tree extensions. Any change here will likely break build scenarios that work today --- in particular, this proposal will break building contrib before the main tree has been installed. If somebody wants to set up a buildfarm member that occasionally tests PGXS building of contrib/, that's fine with me. But it isn't, and never will be, the main build scenario for contrib/ IMO. 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