Re: Extension Templates S03E11
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 529CA173.7070201@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extension Templates S03E11
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/02/2013 04:14 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: