On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:51 PM Tom Lane <t...@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? Swaha
