Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I had a possibly better idea: instead of manufacturing an empty extension
>> with a direct INSERT, hack on the one extension that we know for sure
>> will be installed, namely postgres_fdw itself. So we could do, eg,
>>
>> create function foo() ...
>> alter extension postgres_fdw add function foo();
>> and then test shippability of foo() with or without having listed
>> postgres_fdw as a shippable extension.

> Yeah, I don't have a better idea than that. Could we consider shipping
> that in a different library than postgres_fdw.so, like
> postgres_fdw_test.so?

I'm envisioning the extra function(s) as just being SQL functions, so
they don't need any particular infrastructure.

> That's still strange to have a dummy object in
> postgres_fdw.so just for testing purposes.

We could drop the extra functions at the end of the test, but I don't
see the point exactly. We'd just be leaving the regression test database
with some odd contents of the extension --- there's not any wider effect
than that.

regards, tom lane