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

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date
Msg-id m2aahzr6ef.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Yes, it should be unnecessary given the search_path setup done by
> execute_extension_script().  Also, I think that a relocatable
> extension's script should not be subject to @extschema@ substitution,
> no matter what.

Oh I'm just realizing that my reasoning predates the search_path strong
guarantees at CREATE EXTENSION time.

>> I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query.  It should be
>> providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged.
>
> This seems overly complicated.  I have a version of it that I'll publish
> as soon as I've tested it on all the contrib modules ...

Nice.  I confess I worked out mine from my last patch where I still have
the INTERNAL dependencies setup etc, so maybe that makes it more complex
that it needs to be.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move backwards
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] mingw64