[ back from vacation and slowly catching up on email ]
Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think we were going to try to group the extensions into categories
>> (debugging tools, demonstration code, data types, etc.) and maybe
>> encourage packagers to put the debugging tools in the same OS package
>> as the core server. But Tom was not supportive, and he was at the
>> time the packager for Red Hat, so it didn't seem like we were going to
>> get to far with it.
> My understanding is that we wanted to promote some extensions as being
> "core extensions" and change the directory and documentation layout to
> encourage packagers to rethink they work.
> And my understanding of Tom's reaction is that he didn't believe the
> source directory layout has anything to do with the packaging problem,
> we should just document the extensions we want installed by default and
> packagers will know to follow us there.
> Still, *something* needs to be done here.
Since people seemed to be mentioning my opinions in this thread,
I'll weigh in with a couple of thoughts:
1. I think Dimitri's summary of my opinion is okay as far as the general
topic goes: if we want packagers to favor certain contrib modules over
others, we should just tell them so. No need to complicate our own lives
by rearranging the source tree.
2. As far as pgstattuple in particular goes, I would not be at all
in favor of pushing it into core in its current form. It's an ugly
hodgepodge of functions that weren't too well designed to start with
and aren't even mutually consistent. We could take the opportunity
to redesign, perhaps, if we were going to put such functionality in
core --- but please let's not just push over what's there.
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
