Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Date: 2009-03-22 21:46:20
Message-ID: 18004.1237758380@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Le 22 mars 09  22:05, Tom Lane a crit :
>> This seems drastically overengineered.  What do we need two levels of
>> objects for?

> We need to be able to refer (pg_depend) to (system level) modules.
> Any given extension may depend on more than one module.

You really haven't convinced me that this is anything but
overcomplication.  There might (or might not) be some use-case
for being able to declare that module A depends on module B,
but that doesn't mean we need a second layer of grouping.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2009-03-22 22:15:30
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2009-03-22 21:27:04
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group