Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> FWIW, I agree with Andres' thought that each contrib module should
> Tom> have its own subdirectory under $(includedir_server). Otherwise
> Tom> we're going to be faced with questions about whether .h files need
> Tom> to be renamed because they're not globally unique enough. There
> Tom> are already some that are pretty shaky from this standpoint:

> I'm not suggesting that all modules should install a .h file or that all
> of a module's .h files should be installed.

I agree with that, which implies the need for a new macro comparable to
DATA and DOCS that lists the .h files to be installed.

> A slight snag in trying to use a subdir for each module is that there is
> not in fact anywhere in the existing makefiles that uses or assigns such
> a name. Indeed some contrib subdirs install multiple modules.

So, given that we have to add something to the module makefiles anyway,
we could also add a macro specifying the subdirectory name to use.
(Although in practice this should always be equal to the contrib/
subdirectory name, so maybe we could extract it on that basis?)

regards, tom lane