From: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, amul sul <sul_amul(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | [Review] Re: [PATCH] Remove useless USE_PGXS support in contrib |
Date: | 2013-06-19 10:33:22 |
Message-ID: | 201306191233.30450.cedric@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le jeudi 13 juin 2013 05:16:48, Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
> This has served no purpose except to
>
> 1. take up space
> 2. confuse users
> 3. produce broken external extension modules that take contrib as an
> example 4. break builds of PostgreSQL when users try to fix 3. by
> exporting USE_PGXS
>
> There is adequate material in the documentation and elsewhere (PGXN) on
> how to write extensions and their makefiles, so this is not needed.
> ---
> pursuant to discussion here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/512CEAB8.9010400@gmx.net
* Submission review: patch apply on HEAD, no doc or test required.
* Usability review
** Does the patch actually implement that? yes
** Do we want that?
Consensus is not complete: some use case raised.
1/ regression test: not a good excuse, see [1]
2/ being able to build contrib out of tree, it is unsure it is really needed
on its own but was suggested. See [2] and [3]
Arguments against removal are new features (extension layout, more work on
PGXS shoulders, extension headers exported, clean regression test for PGXS)
** Does it follow the community-agreed behavior?
Some people voiced against the idea. More answers might be better to confirm
that this is wanted. Amul, Joe, Craig ?
** Are there dangers?
The only I can see is packagers building contribs with PGXS, but as it is
currently buggy I'm sure they can't do that.
* Feature test: it deprecates a not-fully-implemented-feature (even fully
implemented this may not be considered a feature at all)
* Performance review: not relevant (contribs may build some µs faster...)
* Coding review: OK
* Architecture review: looks good too.
The patch needs to reach consensus before commit. There is no status for that
in CF, for me current status is: 'Ready, Waiting more feedback from
community'.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-
id/1371610695(dot)13762(dot)25(dot)camel(at)vanquo(dot)pezone(dot)net
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-
id/1371172850(dot)79798(dot)YahooMailNeo(at)web193505(dot)mail(dot)sg3(dot)yahoo(dot)com
[3] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51BBE3A5.40607@2ndquadrant.com
--
Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/
PostgreSQL: Support 24x7 - Développement, Expertise et Formation
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-06-19 11:01:13 | Re: Optimizing pglz compressor |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2013-06-19 10:13:46 | Implementing incremental backup |