Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:

> On 02.07.18 15:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I agree with Andres' thought that each contrib module should
>> have its own subdirectory under $(includedir_server). Otherwise
>> we're going to be faced with questions about whether .h files need
>> to be renamed because they're not globally unique enough.

Peter> Then they perhaps should be renamed. That seems like a much
Peter> simpler solution.

Personally I think that more -I options is less pain than having to
rename things or deal with conflicts.

Where exactly are you suggesting that they should be installed? Directly
in $(installdir_server), or in $(installdir_server)/extension or
equivalent?

Peter> The use case being discussed here is installing a data type
Peter> extension's header so you can write a transform for it. The
Peter> extension's name as well as the data type's own name already
Peter> have to be pretty much globally unique if you want it to be
Peter> useful. So it doesn't seem very difficult to me to have the
Peter> extension install a single header file with that same name.

That's assuming a single header file, which might be a bit more
restrictive than absolutely necessary.

Peter> The other side of this is that the PLs have to install their
Peter> header files. Which the in-core PLs already do. Would we we want
Peter> to move their header files under a new per-extension directory
Peter> scheme?

The in-core PLs could reasonably be grandfathered in in their current
locations, at least for now.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)