On Wed, Jun 2, 2021, at 16:43, Jim Mlodgenski wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:58 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us > <mailto:tgl%40sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > > I wonder whether it'd be better to consider modules as a kind of > > extension, or at least things with the same sort of ownership relations > > as extensions have. > > That would solve the problem of associating objects which is the larger > problem for users today. The objects can all live in their respective > schemas with the module tying them all together.
I like the idea of somehow using extensions. Right now, extensions can only be added from the command-line, via `make install`. But maybe a new extension could be packaged from the SQL prompt, out of existing database objects that are not already part of an extension? Maybe the interface could be: init_new_extension(extension_name text) function, to register a new empty extension. add_object_to_extension(extension_name text, type text, object_names text[], object_args text[]) Then, if dropping the extension, all objects would be dropped, and if creating the extension, all objects would be restored. I don't have an idea on how to handle update scripts, but since it's not mandatory to provide extension update scripts, maybe that's not a problem. /Joel
