Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Date: 2009-03-22 01:49:18
Message-ID: 3299.1237686558@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> We've been talking about this magical "proper module facility" for a few
> releases now... are we still opposed to putting contrib modules in thier own
> schema?

I'm hesitant to do that when we don't yet have either a design or a
migration plan for the module facility. We might find we'd shot
ourselves in the foot, or at least complicated the migration situation
unduly.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-22 01:56:48 Re: Open 8.4 item list
Previous Message Robert Treat 2009-03-22 01:34:37 Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues