Re: pg_amcheck option to install extension

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
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: 2021-04-19 16:32:41
Message-ID: 3d5262d1-a86d-eab0-1fcb-e98c1c735f19@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 4/18/21 7:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
>

OK, so let's fix it. If amcheck is going to stay in contrib then ISTM
pg_amcheck should move there. I can organize that if there's agreement.
Or else let's move amcheck as Alvaro suggests.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-04-19 16:37:08 Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-04-19 16:28:16 Re: Windows default locale vs initdb