On 01/08/2018 00:34, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 23/07/2018 18:32, Andrew Gierth wrote: >>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> >> Tom> As I said before, I think that we should change the existing >> Tom> contrib modules to be coded likewise, all using a single -I switch >> Tom> that points at SRCDIR/contrib. That'd help give people the right >> Tom> coding model to follow. >> >> I don't see that playing nicely with PGXS? > > I'm also not on board that my random third-party extension now has to > refer to its own header files as "subdirectory/headerfile.h". Which > will mess up existing extensions that have header files in their tree. > > Or at least I'm not totally sure what the exact proposal and real-world > implications are, with regard to existing extensions with one or more > header files. > > By all means, let's make it easier for large or small extensions to > manage their header files with PGXS. But let's separate what PGXS can > and should do from what the extension's own file layout is. > > But I think there are some fundamentally incompatible goals here with > regard to how the final -I options are supposed to look.
Was this ever resolved? Seems necessary to resolve for PG11. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
