| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues |
| Date: | 2009-03-22 03:55:54 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070903212055h7b3c9ea6s3b6e1871f30e4853@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
>> We've been talking about this magical "proper module facility" for a few
>> releases now... are we still opposed to putting contrib modules in thier own
>> schema?
>
> I'm hesitant to do that when we don't yet have either a design or a
> migration plan for the module facility. We might find we'd shot
> ourselves in the foot, or at least complicated the migration situation
> unduly.
I think there have been a few designs proposed, but I think part of
the problem is a lack of agreement on the requirements. "module
facility" seems to mean a lot of different things to different people.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-03-22 04:13:35 | Re: small but useful patches for text search |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-22 03:16:46 | Re: libxml incompatibility |