Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 21149.1532319353@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> So, +1 from me for having a directory for each extension.
> So, like Stephen, that's a +1 from me.
Same here. One-file-per-extension is too strongly biased to tiny
extensions (like most of our contrib examples).
I don't have a real strong opinion on whether it's too late to
push this into v11. I do not think it'd break anything other than
packagers' lists of files to be installed ... but it does seem
like a new feature, and we're past feature freeze.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: