Re: Extension Templates S03E11
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1386457544.19125.339.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extension Templates S03E11
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2013-12-07 at 12:27 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Jeff Davis (pgsql@j-davis.com) wrote: > > The behavior of an extension should not depend on how it was installed. > > > > The kind of "extension" being described by Stephen will: > > > > * Not be updatable by doing "ALTER EXTENSION foo UPDATE TO '2.0'" > > ... [ reason ] ... > > * Dump out objects that wouldn't be dumped if they had installed the > > extension using the filesystem > ... [ reason ] ... I understand there are reasons, but I'm having a hard time getting past the idea that "I have extension foo v1.2" now needs to be qualified with "installed using SQL" or "installed using the filesystem" to know what you actually have and how it will behave. Stepping back, maybe we need to do some more research on existing SQL-only extensions. We might be over-thinking this. How many extensions are really just a collection of functions on existing types? If you define a new data type, almost all of the functions seem to revolve around C code -- not just to define the basic data type, but also the GiST support routines, which then mean you're implementing operators in C too, etc. Perhaps we should first focus on making SQL-only extensions more useful? Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: