Thread: Contrib, schema, and load_module
Folks, Magnus and I decided to take on the annual /contrib cleanup for the code sprint here at pgWest. One of the areas we realized needs cleanup is the use of schema with the modules -- Magnus, Bruce and I all think that contrib modules really need to create and use their own private schema. Reasons: -- user access to specific modules -- backup/restore -- upgrading modules -- namespace conflicts (currently, we don't test for these) However, this brings up some questions: 1) should the private schema names be "module_name" or "pg_module_name"? If the latter, what about pgbench and pgcrypto? 2) how do we give DBAs an easy search path for the simplest case, where they want all users to have access to all loaded modules? 3) what work was actually done on load_module() by Tom Dunstan, which might make this unnecessary? --Josh Berkus
Josh Berkus wrote: > 3) what work was actually done on load_module() by Tom Dunstan, which > might make this unnecessary? http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/ca33c0a30804061349s41b4d8fcsa9c579454b27ecd2@mail.gmail.com This link appears on Todo: Improve the module installation experience (/contrib, etc) * modules * Re: PostgreSQL extensions packaging * Database owner installable modules patch It seems that the real way forward is to improve on that patch. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> 3) what work was actually done on load_module() by Tom Dunstan, which >> might make this unnecessary? > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/ca33c0a30804061349s41b4d8fcsa9c579454b27ecd2@mail.gmail.com > > This link appears on Todo: > > Improve the module installation experience (/contrib, etc) > * modules > * Re: PostgreSQL extensions packaging > * Database owner installable modules patch > > It seems that the real way forward is to improve on that patch. > But Tom hasn't done anything since April? That's what I'm asking. --Josh
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> It seems that the real way forward is to improve on that patch.
Yeah. If the schema-per-module answer were really a good answer,
we'd have done it before now. But you need more infrastructure
than just a schema to get good things to happen. Aside from the
search-path-hell issue, a schema alone doesn't solve the problem
of persuading pg_dump to dump a "load module" command rather than
the individual module components.
regards, tom lane
Josh Berkus wrote: > But Tom hasn't done anything since April? That's what I'm asking. What's the surprise? I gathered that Tom is itinerant. If he's not here and we want to job to be done, somebody else must do it. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Le 11 oct. 08 à 01:50, Tom Lane a écrit : > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: >> It seems that the real way forward is to improve on that patch. > > Yeah. If the schema-per-module answer were really a good answer, > we'd have done it before now. I tried to spend some time thinking about those issues and came up with a packaging management proposal, which I still think has merits. One of them is to propose to reuse existing stuff and Tom Dunstan's preliminary work. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg01098.php Hope this helps, - -- dim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkjwmCQACgkQlBXRlnbh1bmIggCdGqD8TwJE7CeZDCL+v5njPtib 4+kAoLVj3rDzsFpJvb/Zc20R+Jo/s5Z7 =O6C6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2008/10/11 Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Le 11 oct. 08 à 01:50, Tom Lane a écrit : >> >> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: >>> >>> It seems that the real way forward is to improve on that patch. >> >> Yeah. If the schema-per-module answer were really a good answer, >> we'd have done it before now. > > I tried to spend some time thinking about those issues and came up with a > packaging management proposal, which I still think has merits. One of them > is to propose to reuse existing stuff and Tom Dunstan's preliminary work. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg01098.php > did you look to SQL/PSM standard? Regards Pavel Stehule > Hope this helps, > - -- > dim > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkjwmCQACgkQlBXRlnbh1bmIggCdGqD8TwJE7CeZDCL+v5njPtib > 4+kAoLVj3rDzsFpJvb/Zc20R+Jo/s5Z7 > =O6C6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
Tom, > Yeah. If the schema-per-module answer were really a good answer, > we'd have done it before now. But you need more infrastructure > than just a schema to get good things to happen. Aside from the > search-path-hell issue, a schema alone doesn't solve the problem > of persuading pg_dump to dump a "load module" command rather than > the individual module components. I have faith in nothing historical regarding /contrib, which has been largely characterized by maintenance neglect. However, it sounds like waiting for something like Dimitri's package manager is the way to go rather than messing with schemas without other instruments in place. I'll just go through and replace the BEGIN ... COMMITS in the SQL scripts, which Bruce admits he deleted without really thinking about it. --Josh
Dimitri, Am I correct in assuming, however, that you're not at all likely to complete this for 8.4? --Josh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Le 11 oct. 08 à 21:10, Josh Berkus a écrit : > Am I correct in assuming, however, that you're not at all likely to > complete this for 8.4? Not only that, but as I've yet to discover PostgreSQL internal code, it would ask a lot of help and efforts to get something in shape even in the 8.5 timeframe. If recent events are showing anything, we can trust the #postgresql crowd to provide the help, and I could organise myself around the time & efforts. Just don't suppose this could happen realistically for 8.4... that is, by the end of this month. Regards, - -- dim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkjw/zEACgkQlBXRlnbh1bn+NACgjPIz+p9X36E8xlhcML7t+0Tx EpkAnA8eYhIPCHwttDg4rs7Eab3XnrfC =+Qsq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----