Will it require a major refactoring effort to install the PAX using the EXTENSION method? We are close to the new release; if so, hope we can evolve in the future release.
Best, Dianjin Wang On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 11:34 AM Zhang Mingli <avamin...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi, Leonid > > On 2025/05/10 14:23:29 Leonid Borchuk wrote: > > Hi, all > > > > I really like the PostgreSQL approach - configure && make && make install. > > Me too. > > > And usually there are no additional packages or builds required. Postgresql > > seems to be compiled everywhere - even on coffee machine. It would be great > > to see the same for cloudberry. Since PAX is quite complex feature it would > > be better to have a special option --enable-pax. > > Agree. > > Unlike AO, PAX, as a contrib module, I think we should avoid adding > --enable-pax or --disable-pax flags entirely. > > Instead, we should treat it as a standard PostgreSQL contrib module. That > means: > It gets built(compiled and installed) only if users explicitly install it > from its directory and follows the usual extension workflow (CREATE EXTENSION) > > Extensions should follow the rule of Postgres, users who need PAX can enable > it the same way they would any other extension. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cloudberry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cloudberry.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cloudberry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cloudberry.apache.org
