On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 08:53:15AM -0800, Swaha Miller wrote: > 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?
Well, that would allow us to have CREATE EXTENSION syntax, but what would it do that CREATE SCHEMA does not? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
