Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

On 2018-Jul-23, Tom Lane wrote:

> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> So, +1 from me for having a directory for each extension.
>
> > So, like Stephen, that's a +1 from me.
>
> Same here. One-file-per-extension is too strongly biased to tiny
> extensions (like most of our contrib examples).
>
> I don't have a real strong opinion on whether it's too late to
> push this into v11. I do not think it'd break anything other than
> packagers' lists of files to be installed ... but it does seem
> like a new feature, and we're past feature freeze.

Frankly, I'd rather make things as easy as possible for third-party
extension writers. I'd go as far as backpatching further (considering
transforms were introduced in 9.5) but I hesitate on that, because of
the packagers argument. pg11 seems fair game to me, though.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services