From: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: modules |
Date: | 2008-04-06 18:28:59 |
Message-ID: | 47F9166B.7000801@wildenhain.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
...
> Yes but what I am suggesting goes beyond that. My idea is that there
> is a modules directory that contains a file for each installable
> module. This file would contain all the information about the module
> such as name, version, where to get the actual package, an MD5 checksum
> of the package, minimum and maximum PostgreSQL versions required, etc.
I'd suggest the approach taken by debian apt rather then pkgsrc -
instead of maintaining a whole directory structure on client side
have a couple of files as database - I guess even using the database
itself would work - and RDP (basically xml over http) which would be
different from apt approach but we are dealing with much less modules.
The most important thing we could learn from apt is to use cryptography
to secure installed modules - instead of just maintaining package
integrity with md5. After all, a database module can do almost
everything - so I'd rather know if I trust the packager.
Just my 0.2c
Tino
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rudolph | 2008-04-06 20:43:05 | Preparing full text search input for use in PostgreSQL 8.3 |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-06 17:59:01 | Re: slow pgsql tables - need to vacuum? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Dunstan | 2008-04-06 20:49:51 | Database owner installable modules patch |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-06 17:41:43 | Re: machine-dependent hash_any vs the regression tests |