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 m2lj1kzysg.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
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
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Right, the basic difficulty here is exactly that in a Makefile that's
> building multiple shlibs, there is no easy way to decide which shlibs go
> with which sql scripts.  The existing implementation essentially relies
> on the base name of the sql script matching the base name of the shlib.
> Adding a single-valued shlib property wouldn't improve matters at all.

My take here is to way that in this case, the current (9.1) way to deal
with the situation is to have multiple extensions when you have multiple
shlibs.  After all we know that multiple extensions from the same
Makefile works, thanks to contrib/spi (I mean extension/spi).

And we even have inter-extensions dependencies in 9.1, so that's
friendly enough I think.

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Farina
Date:
Subject: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage