Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Date
Msg-id 21149.1532319353@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> So, +1 from me for having a directory for each extension.

> So, like Stephen, that's a +1 from me.

Same here.  One-file-per-extension is too strongly biased to tiny
extensions (like most of our contrib examples).

I don't have a real strong opinion on whether it's too late to
push this into v11.  I do not think it'd break anything other than
packagers' lists of files to be installed ... but it does seem
like a new feature, and we're past feature freeze.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-portable shell code in pg_upgrade tap tests
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: wrong query result with jit_above_cost= 0