Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> I don't think that "no changes to the makefiles" is a requirement,
>> or even a wish-list item, for this. I think it's perfectly reasonable
>> for the makefile to have to specify the module name; far better that
>> than that we get the name by some "magic" or other.
> It seemed easy to get a reasonable approach requiring very few edits in
> contribs so I favoured that. Now, it's still entirely possible to hand
> adjust. Determining the extension name automatically from DATA_built or
> DATA is only done where EXTENSION has not been provided,
That is simply a horrid idea. Just make it specify EXTENSION.
> and guessing
> the CONTROL file name from the EXTENSION name only occurs when CONTROL
> has not been provided.
Here, on the other hand, I'm wondering why have two variables at all.
Is there any sane use-case for the control file to not be named the same
as the extension? It seems like that would accomplish little except to
sow confusion.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
