On Nov 29, 2024, at 15:39, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> Then packagers who are taking the risk of not rebuilding every time will have
> 3 months to prepare, not the 3 days we're currently giving. The point about
> "well-known extensions" is based on my practice of grepping PGXN. That would
> not have found timescaledb. Should we name PGXN explicitly, or should we be
> vague like that draft? I'd be comfortable naming any number of repositories
> that make it equally easy to bulk-download the whole repository.
I’m wondering how we can help more projects make releases on PGXN, if for now other reason than to enable these kinds
ofchecks without much additional effort. PGXN releases don’t require a ton of work, requiring just a META.json file in
azip file, and there are GitHub workflows to automate such releases. Anyone interested please hit me up directly for
details.I even make pull requests like this one for pg_partman[1].
Best,
David
[1]: https://github.com/pgpartman/pg_partman/pull/671/files
