Re: Extensions, this time with a patch

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions, this time with a patch
Date: 2010-10-20 21:56:44
Message-ID: m27hhc4jfn.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> That is simply a horrid idea. Just make it specify EXTENSION.

And VERSION too, finally.

So any extension

>
>> and guessing
>> the CONTROL file name from the EXTENSION name only occurs when CONTROL
>> has not been provided.
>
> Here, on the other hand, I'm wondering why have two variables at all.
> Is there any sane use-case for the control file to not be named the same
> as the extension? It seems like that would accomplish little except to
> sow confusion.
>
> regards, tom lane

--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-10-20 21:59:32 Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies
Previous Message Marti Raudsepp 2010-10-20 21:54:37 psql: Don't close stdin, don't leak file descriptor with ON_ERROR_STOP