On 2/14/17 2:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> One part of this would need to be having a designated committee of the
>> Postgres community pick a set of "blessed" extensions for packagers to
>> package. Right now, contrib serves that purpose (badly). One of the
>> reasons we haven't dealt with the extension distribution problem is that
>> nobody wanted to take on the issue of picking a list of blessed extensions.>
> I don't see the trust problem being solved by them being blessed unless
> they're part of the regularly scheduled postgres back-branch
> releases. Which essentially requires them to be in core, or increase the
> release maintenance/management cost further.
I don't see why we'd have to touch blessed PGXN extensions any time
there's a back-branch release. We don't do that with what's in core
today. If we did want to do that (say, so that the extension version
always matched the PG version), it wouldn't be hard to automate.
Obviously if there's a bug in an extension we'd want to do something,
but tying that to the release would be completely optional.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
