Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-27 Thread Mike Blackwell
‚ÄčThere is also a mechanism for the results of the Perl module's "make test" to be reported to a site which aggregates and reports them by Perl version and OS - a sort of distributed build farm. See for example http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBD-Pg+3.5.3

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-27 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 27, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Oh, does CPAN distribute compiled modules or requires users to compile > them. Like PGXN, it formally does not care, but its implementation expects source code distributions what will be built and installed by users. Note

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:00:20PM -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Just stating the obvious, but one of the reasons CPAN works so well is > > that most of the modules are written in Perl and hence don't need > >

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-27 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Just stating the obvious, but one of the reasons CPAN works so well is > that most of the modules are written in Perl and hence don't need > per-platform compilation. There are a *lot* of C-baded modules on CPAN; and my

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:54:37AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If we could somehow integrate PGXN with both the RPM build process, the DEB > build process and a Windows build process (whether driven by PGXN or just "fed > enough data" by PGXN is a different question), I think that would go a

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-17 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 17, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If we could somehow integrate PGXN with both the RPM build process, the DEB > build process and a Windows build process (whether driven by PGXN or just > "fed enough data" by PGXN is a different question), I think that

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-17 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > > > It's a failing in one of the two at least. It either needs to be easier > to build the things on windows, or pgxn would

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-14 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > It's a failing in one of the two at least. It either needs to be easier to > build the things on windows, or pgxn would need to learn to do binary > distributions. PGXN makes no effort to support installation on any

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-14 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Feb 14, 2017 18:26, "David E. Wheeler" wrote: On Feb 14, 2017, at 5:37 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Until pgxn has a way of helping users on for example Windows (or other >> platforms where they don't have a pgxs system and a compiler around), >>

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-14 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Feb 14, 2017, at 5:37 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Until pgxn has a way of helping users on for example Windows (or other >> platforms where they don't have a pgxs system and a compiler around), >> it's always going to be a "second class citizen". > > I view that as more

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > Right; I think we need at least some amount of pgxn buildfarm coverage. > There probably also needs to be a way to officially bless certain > distributions. Unless there's a pretty significant need for an official >

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-14 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/13/17 2:37 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: That's based on an assumption that PGXN shouldn't be treated as part of the community effort, which I think is a mistake. Having a robust, community run extension/package/module framework has proven to be extremely valuable for other

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Anyway, it seems like the consensus here is unanimous. Unless there > are a LARGE number of contrary votes in the meanwhile, I'll go make > this happen sometime next week. Done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB:

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-13 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/10/17 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> There's a bunch of these things in /contrib which really ought to be >>> PGXN extensions (also CUBE, earthdistance, etc.). However, one of the >>> steps in that would be

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-12 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/10/17 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: There's a bunch of these things in /contrib which really ought to be PGXN extensions (also CUBE, earthdistance, etc.). However, one of the steps in that would be getting the mainstream platforms to package them so that users have a reasonable upgrade

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/10/2017 01:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 02/10/2017 10:18 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Works for me. +1 >>> OK, that's three votes in favor of removing tsearch2 (from core, >>> anyone who wants it can

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> That's not a bad idea, but I think it's an independent issue. If the >> hacks are still needed for an external module, we shouldn't go out of >> our way to remove them even if

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Josh Berkus
On 02/10/2017 10:18 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: Works for me. >>> >>> +1 >> >> OK, that's three votes in favor of removing tsearch2 (from core, >> anyone who wants it can maintain a copy elsewhere). > > +1. > > I'd

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I'd also be in favor of either removing contrib/isn, or changing it so > that the ISBN country code prefix enforcement went away. That would > actually not imply and real loss of functionality from a practical > perspective,

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Works for me. >> >> +1 > > OK, that's three votes in favor of removing tsearch2 (from core, > anyone who wants it can maintain a copy elsewhere). +1. I'd also be in favor of either removing contrib/isn, or changing

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Josh Berkus
On 02/10/2017 06:41 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 2/10/17 6:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > That's not a bad idea, but I think it's an independent issue. If the > hacks are still needed for an external module, we shouldn't go out of > our way to remove them even if we nuke tsearch2 (but we don't need to > maintain them going forward unless

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> OK, that's three votes in favor of removing tsearch2 (from core, >> anyone who wants it can maintain a copy elsewhere). Starting a new >> thread to make sure we collect all the

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread David Steele
On 2/10/17 6:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:24 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > OK, that's three votes in favor of removing tsearch2 (from core, > anyone who wants it can maintain a copy elsewhere). Starting a new > thread to make sure we collect all the relevant votes, but I really, > really think it's past time for this to go

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 10 Feb 2017, at 12:28, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] removing tsearch2

2017-02-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Tom