Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions

From: Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions
Date: 2004-08-25 06:46:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
> It seems to me that some vital components have already been set up,
> considering:
>  a) pgxs provides a "build environment" to make it easier to add in
>     "third party extensions" without each of them having to have its
>     own full PG source tree.
>  b) PGFoundry is getting set up as a hopefully-decent place to host
>     things that would be likely to fit into that "second tier" of
>     "Extensions that ought to be ubiquitous."
> Those can also play off against each other; for an extension to become
> "ubiquitous," it is only reasonable for its developers to improve the
> builds to make them play well with pgxs.
> The way I can see this head is for there to be a significant
> population of projects on PGFoundry that, by virtue of using pgxs,
> become as easy to add in as most of the contrib items are now, and
> perhaps roughly as easy as the average BSD Port.
If this whas combined with Jan W. suggestion (community votes to create 
recommendations) it would be very close to what I had in mind in the 
first place.

A project could be hosted on PGFoundry where the "verify" process could 
be explained, i.e.

1. your project must be pgxs compatible.
2. it must be hosted on pgFoundry.
3. it must have automatic regression testing built in (perhaps this is 
part of #1).
4. documentation must follow some guidelines so that it is easy to 
combine it with other docs.
5. someone must suggest it as a candidate for inclusion and give a good 
6. there's a voting period and a minimum number of votes.
7. if the votes are in your favor, your project will be part of the 
supported configurations and you will be asked to participate in the 
integration work.

This project could also host the voting mechanism and the supported 

My Concerns:
Who is behind PGFoundry? Is performance ok now :-)

This project might be perceived as a thirdparty add-on and thus, fail 
its purpose. The steering committee must stand behind this officially. 
Will you? What's your opinion about the suggestion?

Any ideas what the project should be named?


Thomas Hallgren

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ulrich WisserDate: 2004-08-25 07:58:53
Subject: Missing FROM clause
Previous:From: Hadley WillanDate: 2004-08-25 06:18:56
Subject: Ordering by IN

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group