Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Teodor Sigaev wrote: This might be a good idea, but it's hardly transparent; it can be counted on to break the applications of just about everyone using those modules today. Hmm, can we make separate schema for all contib modules and include it in default search

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Teodor Sigaev wrote: >> This might be a good idea, but it's hardly transparent; it can be >> counted on to break the applications of just about everyone using those >> modules today. > > Hmm, can we make separate schema for all contib modules and include it > in default search_path? It will not to

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Teodor Sigaev
This might be a good idea, but it's hardly transparent; it can be counted on to break the applications of just about everyone using those modules today. Hmm, can we make separate schema for all contib modules and include it in default search_path? It will not touchs most users. -- Teodor Siga

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Teodor Sigaev wrote: >> Why is ltree still in contrib? What prevents it from being in core? > Nothing. But I don't see any advantage of placing it in core - it > changes nothing in SQL, API or feature. Moving tsearch2 into core allows > to manage configuration with nice SQL API, using SysCache, aut

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> I don't think two releases from API change to API change is enough - > postgresql is running larger and larger databases by now and I expect > people to upgrade less often in the future (and iirc you already said > something along the lines of recommending such things on occasion to > your custo

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Teodor Sigaev
Why is ltree still in contrib? What prevents it from being in core? Nothing. But I don't see any advantage of placing it in core - it changes nothing in SQL, API or feature. Moving tsearch2 into core allows to manage configuration with nice SQL API, using SysCache, automatical rereading diction

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Oleg Bartunov wrote: we have several requests to improve ltree, particularly, people want to expand class of allowed symbols and configurable separator, which is hard-coded right now. Also,

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Oleg Bartunov wrote: >>> we have several requests to improve ltree, particularly, people want >>> to expand class of allowed symbols and configurable separator, which is >>> hard-coded right now. Also, we discussed GiN support for l

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Richard Troy
FWIW: > * Better packaging support, eg make it easier to add/remove an extension > module and control how pg_dump deals with it. We talked about that > awhile back but nobody did anything with the ideas. +1 > * Better documentation for the contrib modules; some of them are > reasonably well do

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> we have several requests to improve ltree, particularly, people want >> to expand class of allowed symbols and configurable separator, which is >> hard-coded right now. Also, we discussed GiN support for ltree. > O.k. but how

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I would like to see pgcrypto (or at least some of it's > >> functionality) in core. > > > > I believe the reason we keep it separate is so that people can > > easily make crypto-free versions of PG fo

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> >>> The problem with this proposal is that the ISPs aren't the ones running >>> configure --- these days, most people are running prebuilt packages >>> (RPMs or DEBs or what have you). So what you are hoping is that the >>> p

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Oleg Bartunov
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: The problem with this proposal is that the ISPs aren't the ones running configure --- these days, most people are running prebuilt packages (RPMs or DEBs or what have you). So what you are hoping is that the packagers will choose to do this and ther

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> You miss the point. Everybody knows that those laws are not too hard > to circumvent if you are willing to break the law. The question is > how hard is it for someone to distribute Postgres into one of those > countries *without* breaking any local law. We won't be making things > better if w

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I believe the reason we keep it separate is so that people can easily >> make crypto-free versions of PG for use in countries where encryption >> capability is considered subject to arms regulations. Not sure how >> important that

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I would like to see pgcrypto (or at least some of it's functionality) in >> core. > > I believe the reason we keep it separate is so that people can easily > make crypto-free versions of PG for use in countries where encryption

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
>> Well perhaps it is time to trim Contrib even further. E.g; >> >> Why is ltree still in contrib? What prevents it from being in core? > > not sure - ltree is quite useful but I'm not convinced it is really core > material Why? > >> >> Why is pgcrypto,pgstattuple and pg_freespacemap in contri

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would like to see pgcrypto (or at least some of it's functionality) in > core. I believe the reason we keep it separate is so that people can easily make crypto-free versions of PG for use in countries where encryption capability is considered

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Joshua D. Drake wrote: The problem with this proposal is that the ISPs aren't the ones running configure --- these days, most people are running prebuilt packages (RPMs or DEBs or what have you). So what you are hoping is that the packagers will choose to do this and thereby force these modules

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module

2007-01-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> The problem with this proposal is that the ISPs aren't the ones running > configure --- these days, most people are running prebuilt packages > (RPMs or DEBs or what have you). So what you are hoping is that the > packagers will choose to do this and thereby force these modules into > the "stan

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module simultaneously with Postgres itself

2007-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
"Nikolay Samokhvalov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. Change default behaviour of .sql file so it will be > installed in schema instead of "public" (e.g., "hstore" > schema will contain all hstore relations and functions). This might be a good idea, but it's hardly transparent; it can be count

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module simultaneously with Postgres itself

2007-01-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote: > 1. Change default behaviour of .sql file so it will be > installed in schema instead of "public" (e.g., "hstore" > schema will contain all hstore relations and functions). That might be a good idea in any case. > 2. Allow running configure with "--with-" (or > "-

[HACKERS] Proposal: allow installation of any contrib module simultaneously with Postgres itself

2007-01-25 Thread Nikolay Samokhvalov
Discussion "tsearch in core patch, for inclusion" shows (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg01165.php and following http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg01186.php) that there are some problems with contrib promotion and expansion. I've encountered with bad