| 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: | m2zkdicwh2.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-01-20 14:11:48 | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-20 13:37:48 | Re: CLOG contention, part 2 |