Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date
Msg-id 3290389F-034D-4A7B-BFB6-606D92BA438A@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names:
> what if we use double dash as the name/version separator, ie the naming
> conventions are like
>     extension--version.control
>     extension--version.sql
>     extension--oldversion-newversion.sql
> Then we'd only have to forbid double dash in extension names, which
> seems unlikely to be a problem for anybody.  (I think we might also have
> to forbid empty version names to make this bulletproof, but that doesn't
> bother me much either.)

+1 You might even consider mandating a double-dash between versions, so that they could have dashes:
       extension--oldversion--newversion.sql

We don't have to worry about the length of the file name, do we?

Best,

David

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling