| From: | Benedikt Grundmann <bgrundmann(at)janestreet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, 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 12:42:07 |
| Message-ID: | CADbMkNNasx6rzbZhbUsnqUvMP5mx+crzzXqzTE10_cT6AZa5nA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> 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?
A good (documented) convention should make that unnecessary such
as:
packagename.feature
for example
provides hstore.populate_record
Or something along those lines. Or maybe even prefix it with java
like inverse url of author of package.
Cheers,
Bene
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-03-29 12:46:30 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-03-29 12:30:57 | Re: Command Triggers patch v18 |