| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2009-03-22 22:15:30 | Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-03-22 21:27:04 | Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues |