On 13 October 2011 19:46, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> On 10/13/11 6:32 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> Could we somehow categorise these, and also do something to clarify
>>> that SPI is a collection of extensions rather than an extension
>>> itself?
>>
>> Alternately we should clean up SPI and break it out into its separate
>> extensions.
>
> Additionaly we need to pick some and bless them as in-core extensions
> (installed by default, you still need to CREATE EXTENSION to benefit
> from them) and move the others into either an "example" section or an
> "additional" section where production ready goodies are to be found but
> just were not selected as in-core extensions for whatever reasons
> (export laws in the case of pgcrypto, some non portable dependencies for
> other choices, etc).
>
> We might even have some more categories into, such as "debug",
> "profile", "data type", "compat" and all. Maybe a new field with that
> kind of classification in the control file would be good (it would be
> found in the catalogs too).
An extra bit of confusion comes with installing languages as
extensions. These aren't considered to be one of the additional
supplied modules, so not all items which require installing via CREATE
EXTENSION are shown alongside others. And the CREATE EXTENSION page
doesn't mention function languages at all.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
