Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I guess the question is: for what purpose?
> Indeed, it seems like such a thing is not an extension at all anymore,
> or at least it gives up many of the useful properties of extensions.
I'm thinking that a common name and version number tracked in the
database for a set of related functions (that usually form an API) is
useful enough a property to be wanting to have extension support more
use cases than contrib-like “module centric” extensions (meaning, C
coded and shipped with a .so).
> Given the entire lack of demand from the field for such a cut-down
> concept of extension, I think we should not be in a hurry to introduce
> it. Maybe in a year or two when we have a clearer idea of how people
> are actually using extensions, there will be a better argument for it.
Fair enough I guess (or at least I'm understanding how alone I am here),
let's hear from the field first.
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-01-20 14:11:48|
|Subject: Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-01-20 13:37:48|
|Subject: Re: CLOG contention, part 2|