* Simon Riggs (simon@2ndQuadrant.com) wrote:
> I keep seeing people repeat "I don't like blobs" as if that were an
> objection. There is no danger or damage from doing this. I can't see
> any higher beauty that we're striving for by holding out. Why not
> allow the user to choose XML, JSON, YAML, or whatever they choose.
I have no idea where you're going with this, but I *do* object to
sticking an SQL script which defines a bunch of objects into a catalog
table *right next to where they are properly defined*. There's just no
sense in it that I can see, except that it happens to mimic what we do
today- to no particular purpose.
> Blocking this stops nothing, it just forces people to do an extra
> non-standard backflip to achieve their goals. Is that what we want?
> Why?
It's hardly non-standard when it's required for 80+% of the extensions
that exist today anyway.
> That is clear evidence that the packaging is getting in the way of
> extensions that don't include binary programs.
I'm totally on-board with coming up with a solution for extensions which
do not include .so's. Avoiding mention of the .so issue doesn't somehow
change this solution into one which actually solves the issue around
non-binary extensions.
> My only personal interest in this is to stimulate the writing of
> further extensions, which is fairly clearly hampered by the overhead
> required for packaging.
I'm not convinced of that but I agree that we can do better and would
like to see a solution which actually makes progress in that regard. I
don't feel that this does that- indeed, it hardly changes the actual
packaging effort required of extension authors at all.
Thanks,
Stephen
