Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN
On 2/14/17 2:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote: One part of this would need to be having a designated committee of the Postgres community pick a set of "blessed" extensions for packagers to package. Right now, contrib serves that purpose (badly). One of the reasons we haven't dealt with the extension distribution problem is that nobody wanted to take on the issue of picking a list of blessed extensions. > I don't see the trust problem being solved by them being blessed unless they're part of the regularly scheduled postgres back-branch releases. Which essentially requires them to be in core, or increase the release maintenance/management cost further. I don't see why we'd have to touch blessed PGXN extensions any time there's a back-branch release. We don't do that with what's in core today. If we did want to do that (say, so that the extension version always matched the PG version), it wouldn't be hard to automate. Obviously if there's a bug in an extension we'd want to do something, but tying that to the release would be completely optional. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN
On 2/14/17 15:19, Josh Berkus wrote: > You have to admit that it seems really strange in the eyes of a new user > that ISN is packaged with PostgreSQL, whereas better-written and more > popular extensions (like plv8, pg_partman or pgq) are not. I don't know. Seems pretty standard coming from a Python or Ruby ecosystem, say. ;-) -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN
On 2017-02-14 12:19:56 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/14/2017 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Jim Nasbywrites: > >> First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN > >> are not technical in nature. > > > > What do you think "core adoption" means? Surely not that anything > > associated with PGXN would be in the core distro. > > One part of this would need to be having a designated committee of the > Postgres community pick a set of "blessed" extensions for packagers to > package. Right now, contrib serves that purpose (badly). One of the > reasons we haven't dealt with the extension distribution problem is that > nobody wanted to take on the issue of picking a list of blessed extensions. I don't see the trust problem being solved by them being blessed unless they're part of the regularly scheduled postgres back-branch releases. Which essentially requires them to be in core, or increase the release maintenance/management cost further. We sure could have levels between "random github repo" and "in core extension", but I don't see "bless external extensions" supplanting all contrib stuff. There's a few extension in contrib/ where that level would make sense, and surely more outside, but I think moving all of contrib to something externally managed would be horrible idea. > You have to admit that it seems really strange in the eyes of a new user > that ISN is packaged with PostgreSQL, whereas better-written and more > popular extensions (like plv8, pg_partman or pgq) are not. These actually seem like easy cases. plv8 has a massive external dependency, pg_partman is a) relatively new, b) there's in-core development of extensions, and pgq isn't exactly trivial, partially written in python, ... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN
On 2/14/17 2:19 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: One part of this would need to be having a designated committee of the Postgres community pick a set of "blessed" extensions for packagers to package. Right now, contrib serves that purpose (badly). One of the reasons we haven't dealt with the extension distribution problem is that nobody wanted to take on the issue of picking a list of blessed extensions. That was my idea behind "all other official extensions live at git URL here> / ". Adding some kind of reputation system to PGXN would probably be even more useful, but I certainly don't think that's mandatory for having officially blessed "core extensions". -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN
On 02/14/2017 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Nasbywrites: >> First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN >> are not technical in nature. > > What do you think "core adoption" means? Surely not that anything > associated with PGXN would be in the core distro. One part of this would need to be having a designated committee of the Postgres community pick a set of "blessed" extensions for packagers to package. Right now, contrib serves that purpose (badly). One of the reasons we haven't dealt with the extension distribution problem is that nobody wanted to take on the issue of picking a list of blessed extensions. > >> Right now contrib is serving two completely separate purposes: > >> 1) location for code that (for technical reasons) should be tied to >> specific PG versions >> 2) indication of "official endorsement" of a module by the community > > This argument ignores what I think is the real technical reason for > keeping contrib, which is to have a set of close-at-hand test cases > for extension and hook mechanisms. Certainly, not every one of the > existing contrib modules is especially useful for that purpose, but > quite a few of them are. Yes. But there's a bunch that aren't, and those are the ones which we previously discussed, the ones with indifferent maintenance like ISN and Intarray. You have to admit that it seems really strange in the eyes of a new user that ISN is packaged with PostgreSQL, whereas better-written and more popular extensions (like plv8, pg_partman or pgq) are not. -- Josh Berkus Containers & Databases Oh My! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN
On 2/14/17 2:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasbywrites: First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN are not technical in nature. What do you think "core adoption" means? Surely not that anything associated with PGXN would be in the core distro. No, certainly not. If anything, PGXN being a first class citizen would allow for potentially removing code from core, since there would then be a first-class way for users to add it. Right now contrib is serving two completely separate purposes: 1) location for code that (for technical reasons) should be tied to specific PG versions 2) indication of "official endorsement" of a module by the community This argument ignores what I think is the real technical reason for keeping contrib, which is to have a set of close-at-hand test cases for extension and hook mechanisms. Certainly, not every one of the existing contrib modules is especially useful for that purpose, but quite a few of them are. I was under the impression that a lot of that had moved to test, but yes, that's a consideration. That said, if local caching was added to pgxnclient I don't think it'd require much change to just pull those cases from PGXN instead of the core repo. Alternatively, they could be pulled from a git repo that's houses the source code for the official PGXN modules (or what PGXN calls a distribution). Those kind of changes would actually help any extension author that wants to depend on another extension (namely, automatically pulling dependent extensions from PGXN). I have make targets that currently accomplish this. They'd be nicer with some additions to both extensions and PGXN, but IMHO they're workable right now. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN (was: removing tsearch2)
Jim Nasbywrites: > First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN > are not technical in nature. What do you think "core adoption" means? Surely not that anything associated with PGXN would be in the core distro. > Right now contrib is serving two completely separate purposes: > 1) location for code that (for technical reasons) should be tied to > specific PG versions > 2) indication of "official endorsement" of a module by the community This argument ignores what I think is the real technical reason for keeping contrib, which is to have a set of close-at-hand test cases for extension and hook mechanisms. Certainly, not every one of the existing contrib modules is especially useful for that purpose, but quite a few of them are. 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