Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I guess the question is: for what purpose?
>
> Indeed, it seems like such a thing is not an extension at all anymore,
> or at least it gives up many of the useful properties of extensions.
I'm thinking that a common name and version number tracked in the
database for a set of related functions (that usually form an API) is
useful enough a property to be wanting to have extension support more
use cases than contrib-like “module centric” extensions (meaning, C
coded and shipped with a .so).
> Given the entire lack of demand from the field for such a cut-down
> concept of extension, I think we should not be in a hurry to introduce
> it. Maybe in a year or two when we have a clearer idea of how people
> are actually using extensions, there will be a better argument for it.
Fair enough I guess (or at least I'm understanding how alone I am here),
let's hear from the field first.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
