|From:||Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
Robert> I think there have been a few designs proposed, but I think
Robert> part of the problem is a lack of agreement on the
Robert> requirements. "module facility" seems to mean a lot of
Robert> different things to different people.
- want to be able to do INSTALL PACKAGE foo; without needing to
mess with .sql files. This might default to looking for
$libdir/foo.so, or there might be a mechanism to register packages
globally or locally.
- want to be able to do INSTALL PACKAGE foo VERSION 1; and get
the version 1 API rather than whatever the latest is.
- want to be able to do INSTALL PACKAGE foo SCHEMA bar; rather
than having to edit some .sql file.
- want to be able to do DROP PACKAGE foo;
- want pg_dump to not output the definitions of any objects that
belong to a package, but instead to output an INSTALL PACKAGE foo
VERSION n SCHEMA x;
|Next Message||Dave Page||2009-03-22 13:29:45||Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues|
|Previous Message||Andrew Gierth||2009-03-22 11:42:49||Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues|