Re: pg_amcheck option to install extension

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_amcheck option to install extension
Date: 2021-04-18 23:32:40
Message-ID: 20210418233240.GA11048@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-Apr-18, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> On 4/17/21 3:43 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:

> > I'd also like your impressions on whether we're likely to move
> > contrib/amcheck into core anytime soon. If so, is it worth adding
> > an option that we'll soon need to deprecate?
>
> I think if it stays as an extension it will stay in contrib. But it sure
> feels very odd to have a core bin program that relies on a contrib
> extension. It seems one or the other is misplaced.

I've proposed in the past that we should have a way to provide
extensions other than contrib -- specifically src/extensions/ -- and
then have those extensions installed together with the rest of core.
Then it would be perfectly legitimate to have src/bin/pg_amcheck that
depending that extension. I agree that the current situation is not
great.

--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end." (2nd Commandment for C programmers)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2021-04-18 23:36:15 Re: track_planning causing performance regression
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-04-18 23:27:15 Re: partial heap only tuples