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

Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network
Date: 2010-01-13 20:18:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com (Robert Haas) writes:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>> I have long spoken against making Windows a second class citizen. But I
>>> don't think David is going to do that (and I'll hound him if he does). But
>>> that doesn't mean it has to be fully supported from day one.
>> I'm not saying it should be supported from day 1, but I think the
>> initial plan will make it very difficult to add Windows support later
>> without a great deal of rewriting/redesign. It's lack of forward
>> planning I was objecting to.
> I personally suspect that the client is not the most important part of
> this project.  I think the value of CPAN is for searching, more than
> auto-installing.  Personally, I never use the auto-install feature
> because I always want more control than you get that way.  I just use
> the site to find possible modules and browse the docs, and then if I
> find something I like I check with I can pull it from the Red Hat
> repos with rpm, and if not I download it and look it over to see if it
> DWIW, and then if so I usually make a private SRPM for it and install
> from that.  I'd be happy if we just had a good search-and-download
> site.

If "PGAN" leads to us having:

 a) A database containing a useful set of metadata about a large set of
    extensions, and

 b) A way for PostgreSQL developers and binary distribution makers (who
    *do* have GCC / XCode / MingW / Visual Studio / ... available to
    them) to easily:
      - build
      - test
      - try out
      - think about how to package
    that large set of extensions

then we've got a Big Win of the same sort as CPAN, Ruby Gems, and PyPI.

It does NOT need to include installers for every known kind of computer;
that is a *second* problem, which actually requires a series of
solutions for:
 a) Fedora
 b) Debian (hence derivatives like Ubuntu)
 c) BSD Ports
 d) Yes, Windows
 e) I think Solaris has something new for packaging...

If David gets it to the point where it's easy to build and install
extensions into a PostgreSQL installation, then turning that into
packages for specific targets should be a not-insurmountable problem
that may be treated separately.

> That having been said, we should consider our filesystem layout
> carefully however to make sure that if we want to provide things like
> Windows installers in the future, we have a clean way to do that.

If the extensions get installed in a way that is "scalable" in the sense
that it's not a particularly big deal to write a script that pulls 250
extensions and installs them on a particular host for a particular PG
installation, then I'd think that the exercise has been a successful

That leads, naturally enough, to an "Extension BuildFarm" :-).

I'd be somewhat surprised if the use of Windows was a material factor in
the matter.
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','').
"Laugh-a while you can, Monkey Boy."  -- Dr. Lizardo - Buckaroo Banzai

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2010-01-13 20:37:24
Subject: Re: Bloom index
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2010-01-13 20:12:05
Subject: Re: plpython3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group