Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 04:15:53
Message-ID: 21149.1532319353@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-07-23 04:24:27 Re: wrong query result with jit_above_cost= 0
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-07-23 04:01:01 Re: Non-portable shell code in pg_upgrade tap tests