On 12/17/2013 08:32 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndQuadrant.com) wrote:
>> 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.
I'll repeat my requirement: the same extension must be installable the
old way and the new way. I've lost track which of the ideas being
discussed satisfy that requirement, but I object to any that doesn't.
Considering that, I don't see how any if this is going to reduce the
overhead required for packaging. An extension author will write the
extension exactly the same way he does today. Perhaps you meant the
overhead of installing an extension, ie. the work that the DBA does, not
the work that the extension author does?
- Heikki
