Just a Theory

Trans rights are human rights

PGXN Challenges


Last week, I informally shared Extension Ecosystem: Jobs and Tools with colleagues in the #extensions channel on the Postgres Slack. The document surveys the jobs to be done by the ideal Postgres extension ecosystem and the suggests the tools and services required to do those jobs — without reference to existing extension registries and packaging systems.

The last section enumerates some questions we need to ponder and answer. The first one on the list is:

What will PGXN’s role be in this ideal extension ecosystem?

The PostgreSQL Extension Network, or PGXN, is the original extension distribution system, created 2010–11. It has been a moderate success, but as we in the Postgres community imagine the ideal extension distribution future, it’s worthwhile to also critically examine existing tools like PGXN, both to inform the project and to realistically determine their roles in that future.

With that in mind, I here jot down some thoughts on the challenges with PGXN.

PGXN Challenges

PGXN sets a lot of precedents, particularly in its decoupling of the registry from the APIs and services that depend on it. It’s not an all-in-one thing, and designed for maximum distributed dissemination via rsync and static JSON files.

But there are a number of challenges with PGXN as it currently stands; a sampling:

  • PGXN has not comprehensively indexed all public PostgreSQL extensions. While it indexes more extensions than any other registry, it falls far short of all known extensions. To be a truly canonical registry, we need to make it as simple as possible for developers to register their extensions. (More thoughts on that topic in a forthcoming post.)

  • In that vein, releasing extensions is largely a manual process. The pgxn-tools Docker image has improved the situation, allowing developers to create relatively simple GitHub workflows to automatically test and release extensions. Still, it requires intention and work by extension developers. The more seamless we can make publishing extensions the better. (More thoughts on that topic in a forthcoming post.)

  • It’s written in Perl, and therefore doesn’t feel modern or easily accessible to other developers. It’s also a challenge to build and distribute the Perl services, though Docker images could mitigate this issue. Adopting a modern compiled language like Go or Rust might increase community credibility and attract more contributions.

  • Similarly, pgxnclient is written in Python and the pgxn-utils developer tools in Ruby, increasing the universe of knowledge and skill required for developers to maintain all the tools. They’re also more difficult to distribute than compiled tools would be. Modern cross-compilable languages like Go and Rust once again simplify distribution and are well-suited to building both web services and CLIs (but not, perhaps native UX applications — but then neither are dynamic languages like Ruby and Python).

  • The PGXN Search API uses the Apache Lucy search engine library, a project that retired in 2018. Moreover, the feature never worked very well, thanks to the decision to expose separate search indexes for different objects — and requiring the user to select which to search. People often can’t find what they need because the selected index doesn’t contain it. Worse, the default index on the site is “Documentation”, on the surface a good choice. But most extensions include no documentation other than the README, which appears in the “Distribution” index, not “Documentation”. Fundamentally the search API and UX needs to be completely re-architected and -implemented.

  • PGXN uses its own very simple identity management and basic authentication. It would be better to have tighter community identity, perhaps through the PostgreSQL community account.

Given these issues, should we continue building on PGXN, rewrite some or all of its components, or abandon it for new services. The answer may come as a natural result of designing the overall extension ecosystem architecture or from the motivations of community consensus. But perhaps not. In the end, we’ll need a clear answer to the question.

What are your thoughts? Hit us up in the #extensions channel on the Postgres Slack, or give me a holler on Mastodon or via email. We expect to start building in earnest in February, so now’s the time!