Re: Core Extensions relocation

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Core Extensions relocation
Date: 2011-06-11 05:09:45
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On tor, 2011-06-09 at 00:14 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> Following up on the idea we've been exploring for making some
> extensions
> more prominent, attached is the first rev that I think may be worth
> considering seriously. Main improvement from the last is that I
> reorganized the docs to break out what I decided to tentatively name
> "Core Extensions" into their own chapter. No longer mixed in with
> the
> rest of the contrib modules, and I introduce them a bit
> differently.

For the directory name, I'd prefer either src/extensions (since there is
more than one), or if you want to go for short somehow, src/ext. (Hmm,
I guess the installation subdirectory is also called "extension". But
it felt wrong on first reading anyway.)

There is some funny business in your new src/extension/Makefile. You
apparently based this on a very old version of contrib/Makefile (if
still contains a CVS keyword header), it uses for loops in make targets
after we just got rid of them, and it references some modules that
aren't there at all. That file needs a complete redo based on current
sources, I think.

Equally, your new sets MODULEDIR, which is no longer
necessary, and has a CVS header. What version did you branch this
off? :)

Perhaps a small addition to the installation instructions would also be
appropriate, to tell people that certain core extensions, as it were,
are installed by default.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2011-06-11 08:02:25 Re: procpid?
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2011-06-11 05:02:13 Re: procpid?