Hi, see comments inline:
> On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> I'm a bit worried that supporting extensions that PG itself doesn't use
Pg chose the extension .cpp, and chose it fairly recently. It seems to have been an arbitrary choice for the three
filesadded as part of the JIT addition.
> I guess we have two choices:
> 1) Add rules for ".cpp", ".cc", ".C", ".cxx", and ".c++" and whatever
> else we can think of. Add additional variants whenever somebody
> presents one (and backpatch it).
This is a rather disingenuous choice. Perhaps a better approach would be to do a quick survey of the existing c++
extensions(there aren’t very many), and make a determination of what the community has chosen to support. As an aside,
.Cwill be problematic on filesystems that are case-insensitive.
> 2) Insist that pg extensions follow PGXS rules, which atm are to use
> .cpp for c++ source files.
>
> I don't really have an opinion here.
You have an obvious opinion here, and had a very strong opinion on irc.