Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date: 2011-02-12 23:04:26
Message-ID: 3290389F-034D-4A7B-BFB6-606D92BA438A@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names:
> what if we use double dash as the name/version separator, ie the naming
> conventions are like
> extension--version.control
> extension--version.sql
> extension--oldversion-newversion.sql
> Then we'd only have to forbid double dash in extension names, which
> seems unlikely to be a problem for anybody. (I think we might also have
> to forbid empty version names to make this bulletproof, but that doesn't
> bother me much either.)

+1 You might even consider mandating a double-dash between versions, so that they could have dashes:

extension--oldversion--newversion.sql

We don't have to worry about the length of the file name, do we?

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-12 23:12:43 Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Previous Message Noah Misch 2011-02-12 22:33:37 Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw