Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2009-03-23 08:41:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sunday 22 March 2009 22:46:20 Tom Lane wrote:
> You really haven't convinced me that this is anything but
> overcomplication.

Thinking about it some more what could be convincing is that an extension 
could be made of only SQL, with no module (.so) (I have a case here).

If a single .sql file can be seen as an extension, I'd want to avoid naming it 
the same as the .so file itself. Having the term "module" refer either to a 
single .so (or .dll), or a .so with an accompanying .sql file to install it, or 
even just the SQL file... would add confusion, methinks.

If there's not enough confusion here to grant separating what we call a module 
and what we call an extension, then I'll go edit my proposal :)

> 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.

Agreed, this reason is not a good one for splitting module and extension.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2009-03-23 08:51:17
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-03-23 08:32:17
Subject: Re: cs_CZ vs regression tests, part N

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group