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 87sh3w8ioz.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>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

 Tom> Something that copes with different modules installing headers
 Tom> with the same base name. Allowing for that was the driving force
 Tom> for going with subdirectory-per-extension, but if we really want
 Tom> that to work, there seems to be no alternative but for extensions
 Tom> to write qualified header names (#include "hstore/hstore.h" not
 Tom> #include "hstore.h"). Andres, for one, seemed to think that
 Tom> wouldn't play nicely with PGXS,

I think that was me, not Andres?

But I think I was partially wrong and that it's possible that this can
be made to work at least in most cases, as long as we can rely on the
same-directory rule for #include "foo.h". (i.e. the first place to look
is always the same directory as the file containing the #include
statement).

I'm going to test this now, trying to do an out-of-both-trees build
of a transform function for an out-of-tree PL that uses multiple .h
files.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: FailedAssertion on partprune