Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN

2017-02-17 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/14/17 2:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote: One part of this would need to be having a designated committee of the Postgres community pick a set of "blessed" extensions for packagers to package. Right now, contrib serves that purpose (badly). One of the reasons we haven't dealt with the extension

Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN

2017-02-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/14/17 15:19, Josh Berkus wrote: > You have to admit that it seems really strange in the eyes of a new user > that ISN is packaged with PostgreSQL, whereas better-written and more > popular extensions (like plv8, pg_partman or pgq) are not. I don't know. Seems pretty standard coming from a

Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN

2017-02-14 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-02-14 12:19:56 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/14/2017 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Jim Nasby writes: > >> First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN > >> are not technical in nature. > > > > What do you think "core adoption"

Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN

2017-02-14 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/14/17 2:19 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: One part of this would need to be having a designated committee of the Postgres community pick a set of "blessed" extensions for packagers to package. Right now, contrib serves that purpose (badly). One of the reasons we haven't dealt with the extension

Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN

2017-02-14 Thread Josh Berkus
On 02/14/2017 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Nasby writes: >> First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN >> are not technical in nature. > > What do you think "core adoption" means? Surely not that anything > associated with PGXN would

Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN

2017-02-14 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/14/17 2:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby writes: First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN are not technical in nature. What do you think "core adoption" means? Surely not that anything associated with PGXN would be in the core

Re: [HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN (was: removing tsearch2)

2017-02-14 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN > are not technical in nature. What do you think "core adoption" means? Surely not that anything associated with PGXN would be in the core distro. > Right now contrib is

[HACKERS] Official adoption of PGXN (was: removing tsearch2)

2017-02-14 Thread Jim Nasby
First, just to clarify: my reasons for proposing "core adoption" of PGXN are not technical in nature. My desire is to have an extension/add-on system that's officially endorsed and embraced by the official community, similar to CPAN, pypy, npm, etc. There's no technical reason we need PGXN to