On 01/08/2018 00:34, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 23/07/2018 18:32, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>>
>> Tom> As I said before, I think that we should change the existing
>> Tom> contrib modules to be coded likewise, all using a single -I switch
>> Tom> that points at SRCDIR/contrib. That'd help give people the right
>> Tom> coding model to follow.
>>
>> I don't see that playing nicely with PGXS?
>
> I'm also not on board that my random third-party extension now has to
> refer to its own header files as "subdirectory/headerfile.h". Which
> will mess up existing extensions that have header files in their tree.
>
> Or at least I'm not totally sure what the exact proposal and real-world
> implications are, with regard to existing extensions with one or more
> header files.
>
> By all means, let's make it easier for large or small extensions to
> manage their header files with PGXS. But let's separate what PGXS can
> and should do from what the extension's own file layout is.
>
> But I think there are some fundamentally incompatible goals here with
> regard to how the final -I options are supposed to look.
Was this ever resolved?
Seems necessary to resolve for PG11.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services