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

Re: Inline Extension

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inline Extension
Date: 2012-01-20 13:52:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I guess the question is: for what purpose?
> Indeed, it seems like such a thing is not an extension at all anymore,
> or at least it gives up many of the useful properties of extensions.

I'm thinking that a common name and version number tracked in the
database for a set of related functions (that usually form an API) is
useful enough a property to be wanting to have extension support more
use cases than contrib-like “module centric” extensions (meaning, C
coded and shipped with a .so).

> Given the entire lack of demand from the field for such a cut-down
> concept of extension, I think we should not be in a hurry to introduce
> it.  Maybe in a year or two when we have a clearer idea of how people
> are actually using extensions, there will be a better argument for it.

Fair enough I guess (or at least I'm understanding how alone I am here),
let's hear from the field first.

Dimitri Fontaine     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2012-01-20 14:11:48
Subject: Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-20 13:37:48
Subject: Re: CLOG contention, part 2

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