Re: Extension Templates S03E11

On 24.11.2013 00:19, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
>> In the CF app, this is marked "Ready for Committer". That's a bit vague
>> here, considering Dimitri, you, Peter, and Alvaro are all committers.
>> Who is this patch waiting on? Is the discussion concluding, or does it
>> need another round of review?
>
> Thanks for the confusion I guess, but I'm no committer here ;-)
>
> This patch has received extensive review in July and I think it now
> properly implements the design proposed by Tom and Heikki in 9.3/CF4.

Ok, since my name has been mentioned, I'll bite..

I still don't like this. What I suggested back in December was to have a
simple mechanism to upload an extension zip file to the server via libpq
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50BF80A6.20500@vmware.com). The
idea developed from that into the concept of extension templates, but
the original idea was lost somewhere along the way.

Back in December, when I agreed that "upload zip file via libpq" might
be useful, Tom suggested that we call control+sql file a "template", and
the installed entity an "extension". So far so good. Now comes the
patch, and the extension template no longer means a control+sql file. It
means an entity that's installed in the database that contains the same
information as a control+sql file, but in a new format. In fact, what
*do* you call the control+sql file that lies on the filesystem? Not a
template, apparently.

I want to be able to download extension.zip from pgxn.org, and then
install it on a server. I want to be able to install it the traditional
way, by unzipping it to the filesystem, or via libpq by using this new
feature. I do *not* want to rewrite the extension using a new CREATE
TEMPLATE FOR EXTENSION syntax to do the latter. I want to be able to
install the *same* zip file using either method.

- Heikki