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

Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Date: 2009-03-23 03:11:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

 Tom> I doubt that we want to decorate every CREATE statement we've
 Tom> got with an optional MODULE clause; to name just one objection,
 Tom> it'd probably be impossible to do so without making MODULE a
 Tom> fully reserved word.

 Tom> What was discussed in the last go-round was some sort of
 Tom> state-dependent assignment of a module context.  You could
 Tom> imagine either

 Tom> or something along the lines of

 Tom> 	SET current_module = modname;

 Tom> 	CREATE this;
 Tom> 	CREATE that;
 Tom> 	CREATE the_other;

 Tom> 	SET current_module = null;

 Tom> which is really more or less the same thing except that it makes
 Tom> the state concrete in the form of an examinable variable.  In
 Tom> either case you'd need to define how the state would interact
 Tom> with transactions and errors.

I like the SET version better. As for transactions and errors, I think
that installing a module should be done inside a transaction anyway;
and the usual GUC mechanisms should handle it if it was done using


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-03-23 03:26:03
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Previous:From: Andrew GierthDate: 2009-03-23 03:05:04
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group