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

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Date
Msg-id 87a7q4adnk.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

 Tom> Maybe this all just works without much thought, but given that
 Tom> smart people like Peter E. seem to be unsure of that, I'd sure
 Tom> like to see a concrete set of rules that extensions should follow
 Tom> for this.

I'll comment on the more substantive stuff later since I just noticed a
few relevant points that I need to investigate. But while investigating,
I found...

 Tom> There's also a question of whether we need to change anything in
 Tom> contrib/ so that it plays by whatever rules we set.  There's an
 Tom> expectation that contrib modules should be buildable with PGXS,
 Tom> so they need to follow the rules.

... that at least all of the *_plperl transform modules in contrib/ fail
to build with USE_PGXS already (i.e. for as long as they have ever
existed), because they rely on plperl_helpers.h which is never installed
anywhere, and trying to get it via $(top_srcdir) obviously can't work in
PGXS.

Haven't tried the python ones yet.

-- 
Andrew.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: FailedAssertion on partprune
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().