Dear Thomas,
> My point is, in order to maintain a good separation of concern, I
> should not use this knowledge.
I agree.
> IMHO, there's a need for a well documented "module extension build API"
> accessible from a well known place.
Sure.
I'm not really addressing that at the moment, I'm addressing having the
necessary files. Given gnu-make constraints about makefile inclusions,
that requires to have the same layout as the initial source tree, whatever
it is. I'm not sure that dropping all includes would be an easy move, nor
even desirable.
> This is more important than to include it in the default installation.
Well, the point of having an infrastructure if extensions cannot rely it
being there when needed is not clear to me.
> Your suggestion to rewrite the Makefile.global etc. is a good first step.
It is what I'm trying to avoid;-) It is not just this makefile, but the
whole include-based makefiles that are at stake. I think that an
infrastructure is possible without fixing these files.
So as I understand your point as "the layout constraints should not be
visible from the extensions API", I suggest that extension makefiles
should look like (adapted from contrib):
PGXSDIR := $(shell pg_config --pgxs-dir)include $(PGXSDIR)/pgxs_begin.mk[... set required macros as in contrib
...]include$(PGXSDIR)/pgxs_end.mk
It is independent from what my first patch addresses, that is
tryinbg to put all required files somewhere on install.
Thanks for your point,
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr