On 12/02/2013 04:14 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
What is the next step to allow an extension pulled down from pgxn to be
installed, unchanged, into a given database?


An extension packaging system.

Unchanged is not a goal, and not possible even today.

PGXN is a *source based* packaging system. You can't just install what's
in PGXN on the server's file system then CREATE EXTENSION, you have this
extra step called the “build”.

Whether you're targetting a file system template or a catalog template,
PGXN is not a complete solution, you still need to build the extension.

So? Just "make; make install" and you're done. Or "apt-get install foo".

What I want to build is an “extension distribution” software that knows
how to prepare anything from PGXN (and other places) so that it's fully
ready for being used in the database.

You mean, something to replace "make install" if it's not installed on the server? Fair enough. You could probably write a little perl script to parse simple Makefiles that only copy a few static files in place. Or add a flag to the control file indicating that the extension follows a standard layout, and doesn't need a "make" step.

I fear we're wandering off the point again. So let me repeat: It must be possible to install the same extension the way you do today, and using the new mechanism.

- Heikki


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

Reply via email to