| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
| Date: | 2013-12-02 13:59:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20131202135931.GZ17272@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Dimitri Fontaine (dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr) wrote:
> > There should be no difference between file-based extensions and
> > catalog-based extensions. It's just two different ways to install the same
> > extension. The extension author doesn't need to care about that, it's the
> > DBA that decides which method to use to install it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I'm going to object loudly to any proposal that doesn't meet that criteria.
>
> Please be kind enough to poin me where my current patch is drifting away
> from that criteria. What you're proposing here is what I think I have
> been implementing.
Perhaps you're seeing something down the road that I'm not, but I don't
see how what you're proposing with extension templates actually moves us
closer to this goal.
What is the next step to allow an extension pulled down from pgxn to be
installed, unchanged, into a given database?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu kommi | 2013-12-02 14:10:16 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-12-02 13:50:35 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |