Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?

From: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?
Date: 2011-05-18 19:29:08
Message-ID: BANLkTi=efON_3EzxmGNRmLh+ogJEL8cR-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:25, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Some of my personal discussions of this topic have suggested that some other
>> popular extensions like pgcrypto and hstore get converted too.  I think
>> those all fail test (3), and I'm not actually sure where pgcrypto adds any
>> special dependency/distribution issues were it to be moved to the main
>> database package.  If this general idea catches on, a wider discussion of
>> what else should get "promoted" to this extensions area would be
>> appropriate.  The ones I picked seemed the easiest to justify by this
>> criteria set.
>
> pgcrypto would cause trouble for any builds *without* SSL. I don't
> think any packagers do that, but people doing manual builds would
> certainly get different results.

What kind of trouble? It should work fine without SSL.

--
marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2011-05-18 19:36:04 Re: deprecating contrib for PGXN
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-05-18 19:27:55 Re: deprecating contrib for PGXN