Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, 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 03:55:54
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

I think there have been a few designs proposed, but I think part of
the problem is a lack of agreement on the requirements.  "module
facility" seems to mean a lot of different things to different people.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-03-22 04:13:35
Subject: Re: small but useful patches for text search
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-03-22 03:16:46
Subject: Re: libxml incompatibility

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group