Re: "Extension" versus "module" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: "Extension" versus "module"
Date
Msg-id 25496.1297701172@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "Extension" versus "module"  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Another concern has to do with PLs.  We said that with the dependency
> mechanism it would be good to have PLs be EXTENSIONs.  But those are
> core provided extensions, one of them installed by default.

> If we make PLs extensions, we might also want to have CREATE LANGUAGE
> either ERROR out or silently do the CREATE EXTENSION instead, meaning
> that CREATE LANGUAGE behavior would depend on creating_extension.
> Sounds like a crock but ensures compatibility.

Yeah.  I was sort of wondering whether we could get rid of pg_pltemplate
altogether, and instead rely on the extension mechanism to package up
the correct parameters for installing a language.  However, one thing
that'd have to be solved before going very far in this direction is the
question of allowing CREATE EXTENSION to non-superusers.  We'd at least
need to be able to duplicate the current functionality of allowing
CREATE LANGUAGE to database owners (with an override available to the
DBA).

This seems like a matter for a separate thread though, and not on
pgsql-docs.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: sepgsql contrib module
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling