Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I for one wonder why we even have PGXS support in contrib at all. It's
> not documented or tested anywhere, so it might as well not exist.
I think I did about the same comment back when cooking the extension
patch, and the answer then was all about providing PGXS usage examples.
Now if none of the buildfarm animals are actually building our contribs
out of tree, maybe we should just remove those examples.
The cost of keeping them is that they double-up the Makefile content and
lots of users do think they need their extension's Makefile to be
structured the same. The common effect before the extension availability
was for people to provide extensions that would only build in tree.
I don't want to kill cleaning up those Makefiles, but I still want to
make a strong correlation in between that point and providing core
maintained extensions. I don't think extensions should have support for
being built in-tree at all.
My proposal: paint them extension rather than contrib modules, then
cleanup Makefiles so as to stop building them in-tree.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
