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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2008-04-02 23:55:23|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: new ereport option "errdetail_log"|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2008-04-02 23:35:44|
|Subject: Re: Patch queue -> wiki (was varadic patch)|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Terry Lee Tucker||Date: 2008-04-02 23:47:51|
|Subject: Proper Way to Disable Triggers|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-02 23:04:09|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |