Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Date: 2018-07-23 03:24:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> When I think about the demands of extensions, I tend to consider PostGIS
> the prime example and I certainly would understand if they wanted to
> install multiple headers (they have some 72 .h files from what I'm
> seeing...).
> So, +1 from me for having a directory for each extension.

Definitely. If we were to choose the one-file per extension choice,
most large extension maintainers would logically scream at us. If for
example you look at Citus, in src/include/distributed there are a bunch
of them. Then based on that folks could always tweak their CFLAGS
pointing to the path of the extension if they need to.

We cannot ensure either that multiple extensions do not use the same
header file names, which discards any design using a single installation
location with multiple files.

So, like Stephen, that's a +1 from me.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-07-23 03:35:18 Re: pgbench: improve --help and --version parsing
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-07-23 03:10:58 Re: Add SKIP LOCKED to VACUUM and ANALYZE