Re: "Extension" versus "module"

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: "Extension" versus "module"
Дата
Msg-id 25496.1297701172@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: "Extension" versus "module"  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Another concern has to do with PLs.  We said that with the dependency
> mechanism it would be good to have PLs be EXTENSIONs.  But those are
> core provided extensions, one of them installed by default.

> If we make PLs extensions, we might also want to have CREATE LANGUAGE
> either ERROR out or silently do the CREATE EXTENSION instead, meaning
> that CREATE LANGUAGE behavior would depend on creating_extension.
> Sounds like a crock but ensures compatibility.

Yeah.  I was sort of wondering whether we could get rid of pg_pltemplate
altogether, and instead rely on the extension mechanism to package up
the correct parameters for installing a language.  However, one thing
that'd have to be solved before going very far in this direction is the
question of allowing CREATE EXTENSION to non-superusers.  We'd at least
need to be able to duplicate the current functionality of allowing
CREATE LANGUAGE to database owners (with an override available to the
DBA).

This seems like a matter for a separate thread though, and not on
pgsql-docs.

            regards, tom lane

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: sepgsql contrib module
Следующее
От: Dimitri Fontaine
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling