[Review] Re: [PATCH] Remove useless USE_PGXS support in contrib

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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