Re: pg_xlogdump

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_xlogdump
Date: 2013-02-26 16:38:14
Message-ID: 20130226163813.GB7074@alap2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-02-26 17:23:01 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > I for one wonder why we even have PGXS support in contrib at all. It's
> > not documented or tested anywhere, so it might as well not exist.

Agreed. I personally think we just should build contrib/ as part of the
normal build and be done with it.

There's currently the argument that building them separately is
interesting because you can do it from a separate sourcetree if you have
a precompiled postgres around. But whats the usecase for that?

I would much rather designate one example module that is always built
with PGXS (possibly only during regress's install?), so we reliably test that.

> I think I did about the same comment back when cooking the extension
> patch, and the answer then was all about providing PGXS usage examples.
> Now if none of the buildfarm animals are actually building our contribs
> out of tree, maybe we should just remove those examples.
>
> The cost of keeping them is that they double-up the Makefile content and
> lots of users do think they need their extension's Makefile to be
> structured the same. The common effect before the extension availability
> was for people to provide extensions that would only build in tree.
>
> I don't want to kill cleaning up those Makefiles, but I still want to
> make a strong correlation in between that point and providing core
> maintained extensions. I don't think extensions should have support for
> being built in-tree at all.

Wait what? So I need to make install before I can compile extensions?
That doesn't seem to be something realistic.

> My proposal: paint them extension rather than contrib modules, then
> cleanup Makefiles so as to stop building them in-tree.

Imo painting them extensions is something unrelated. Which doesn't apply
to everything in contrib/, there are several modules that don't make
sense as extensions (chkpass, oid2name, passwordcheck,
pg_archivecleanup, pgbench, ...).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-02-26 16:40:58 Re: "COPY foo FROM STDOUT" and ecpg
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-02-26 16:38:00 Re: pg_xlogdump