On 24.11.2013 00:19, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
In the CF app, this is marked "Ready for Committer". That's a bit vague
here, considering Dimitri, you, Peter, and Alvaro are all committers.
Who is this patch waiting on? Is the discussion concluding, or does it
need another round of review?

Thanks for the confusion I guess, but I'm no committer here ;-)

This patch has received extensive review in July and I think it now
properly implements the design proposed by Tom and Heikki in 9.3/CF4.

Ok, since my name has been mentioned, I'll bite..

I still don't like this. What I suggested back in December was to have a simple mechanism to upload an extension zip file to the server via libpq (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50bf80a6.20...@vmware.com). The idea developed from that into the concept of extension templates, but the original idea was lost somewhere along the way.

Back in December, when I agreed that "upload zip file via libpq" might be useful, Tom suggested that we call control+sql file a "template", and the installed entity an "extension". So far so good. Now comes the patch, and the extension template no longer means a control+sql file. It means an entity that's installed in the database that contains the same information as a control+sql file, but in a new format. In fact, what *do* you call the control+sql file that lies on the filesystem? Not a template, apparently.

I want to be able to download extension.zip from pgxn.org, and then install it on a server. I want to be able to install it the traditional way, by unzipping it to the filesystem, or via libpq by using this new feature. I do *not* want to rewrite the extension using a new CREATE TEMPLATE FOR EXTENSION syntax to do the latter. I want to be able to install the *same* zip file using either method.

- Heikki

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to