From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | modules |
Date: | 2008-04-02 23:41:16 |
Message-ID: | 47F4199C.5040908@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> as having better system support for packages or modules or whatever
>> you want to call them; and maybe we also need some marketing-type....
>
> ...re-raise the question of getting rid of contrib...
> "The PostgreSQL Standard Modules".
While renaming, could we go one step further and come up with a
clear definition of what it takes for something to qualify as
a module? In particular I think standardizing the installation
would go a long way to letting packagers automate the installation
of modules from pgfoundry.
I think it'd be especially cool if one could one-day have a command
pg_install_module [modulename] -d [databasename]
and it would magically get (or verify that it had) the latest
version from pgfoundry; compile it (if needed) and install it
in the specified database.
The closest analogy to what I'm thinking is the perl CPAN or ruby gems.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Terry Lee Tucker | 2008-04-02 23:47:51 | Proper Way to Disable Triggers |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-02 23:04:09 | Re: [GENERAL] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-02 23:55:23 | Re: Proposal: new ereport option "errdetail_log" |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-02 23:35:44 | Re: Patch queue -> wiki (was varadic patch) |