| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>,<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,<umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |
| Date: | 2012-03-29 12:01:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4F7408C902000025000468C3@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that technically this patch can be polished well enough to
> commit in the time we have available, but the question of whether
> it's the right design is harder, and I don't want that to be my
> call alone.
I gather from previous posts that the intent isn't to allow different
packages from different authors to provide a common and compatible
feature; but what happens in the current design if someone
accidentally or maliciously produces an extension which provides the
same feature name as another extension?
Would we need some registry?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-03-29 12:20:36 | Re: ECPG FETCH readahead |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-29 11:42:41 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |