On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 08:53:15AM -0800, Swaha Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Hm. If the functional requirement is "group objects without needing
> any out-in-the-filesystem infrastructure", then I could see defining
> a module as being exactly like an extension except there's no such
> infrastructure --- and hence no concept of versions, plus pg_dump
> needs to act differently. That's probably enough semantic difference
> to justify using a separate word, even if we can share a lot of
> code infrastructure.
>
> Then as a first cut for modules, could we add CREATE MODULE
> syntax which adds an entry to pg_extension like CREATE EXTENSION
> does? And also add a new column to pg_extension to distinguish
> modules from extensions.
>
> The three-part path name resolution for functions would remain the
> same, nothing would need to change there because of modules.
>
> Would that be an acceptable direction to go?
Well, that would allow us to have CREATE EXTENSION syntax, but what
would it do that CREATE SCHEMA does not?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
