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

Re: Inline Extension

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inline Extension
Date: 2012-01-19 15:21:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Frankly I don't see the point of this. If the extension is an independent
> piece of (SQL) code, developed separately from an application, with its own
> lifecycle, a .sql file seems like the best way to distribute it. If it's
> not, ie. if it's an integral part of the database schema, then why package
> it as an extension in the first place?

It allows to easily deploy an extension to N databases (my current use
case has 256 databases) and knowing which version is installed on each
server. It's easier to QA your procedures and upgrades when they are
packaged as extensions, too.

Now, for the dependency on a SQL file hosting the content, it's easier
to just connect to the databases and get them the script in the SQL
command rather than deploying a set of files: that means OS level
packaging, either RPM or debian or some other variant. Or some other
means of easily deploying the files. An SQL connection is all you need
if you're not shipping .so.

Dimitri Fontaine     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-01-19 15:33:21
Subject: Re: Avoiding shutdown checkpoint at failover
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-01-19 15:18:55
Subject: Re: Simulating Clog Contention

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