public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>
To: Gabriele Bartolini <[email protected]>
Cc: Matheus Alcantara <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Craig Ringer <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 10:05:18 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+VUV5ry0=sZ1eeUT6DtLapaUr0kFkOE9qzUkTHzF_i6adtQ1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+TgmoaMk==vOUmWwJ5ZA-EueNqa9RQaWMEiHCF1ZKW_YCcj8g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoYcAmhnSUHKdJsS1wOR-9+y6dbLhfJ3Ad+iZEDmA1mPXg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CA+VUV5oWkMVvtNB0BG2CM8SrmOkeW6fEtXGehbniHqR9MhMzVw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGRY4nxP6A5Dz23g+aGD-agdVwUj_qrG6szd-mWc0E5OFMBg4w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAGRY4ny=Oy-F0qCRFQa=XtEqyUbMygvbqqKahAvbae7v4LTOrQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAGRY4nx8Fmea4udk--PKdvfgpNdqC+rcueAmGwuw2PD9dv+zqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAFY6G8dzuLXFjONX5E-TvyD5E9r21b5vp1My_nMcqdGD0VYfYw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAFY6G8dGcv1D8tCkjrz+9DvAYG9h4U=hBm0VXjJEXExy44hauQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFY6G8eOMkGXLqzUz=qXrwt4X_HvmVZ13570DAbgAiw+3q03DA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+VUV5rkSgVn=J7qANwgz9TaW3W_nZi4qwBGtcCE6L4HS-xRmQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+VUV5ry0=sZ1eeUT6DtLapaUr0kFkOE9qzUkTHzF_i6adtQ1w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mar 3, 2025, at 08:39, Gabriele Bartolini <[email protected]> wrote:
> As promised, here is a blog article that provides more context and information about what this feature will mean in Kubernetes with CloudNativePG: https://www.gabrielebartolini.it/articles/2025/03/the-immutable-future-of-postgresql-extensions-in-k...
Very nice writeup, thank you. Makes me wish for the bandwidth to get back to and start refining the PGXN OCI RFC to specify tags and/or metadata for the distribution of different contents, including:
* Full extension distribution (as currently written)
* Distribution with only pkglibdir and sharedir contents
* Distribution with only pkglibdir contents
* Distribution with only sharedir contents
I think we could come up with a standard that would work very nicely for a variety of use cases.
Will have to see if I can scrounge up the time for it.
Best,
David
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (833B, ../[email protected]/2-signature.asc)
download
view thread (44+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox