Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I guess the question is: for what purpose? > > Indeed, it seems like such a thing is not an extension at all anymore, > or at least it gives up many of the useful properties of extensions.
I'm thinking that a common name and version number tracked in the database for a set of related functions (that usually form an API) is useful enough a property to be wanting to have extension support more use cases than contrib-like “module centric” extensions (meaning, C coded and shipped with a .so). > Given the entire lack of demand from the field for such a cut-down > concept of extension, I think we should not be in a hurry to introduce > it. Maybe in a year or two when we have a clearer idea of how people > are actually using extensions, there will be a better argument for it. Fair enough I guess (or at least I'm understanding how alone I am here), let's hear from the field first. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
