From: "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <003001d8f4ae$402282c0$c0678840$@pcorp.us>
 <79300.1668052170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <79300.1668052170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: RE: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension
 scripts
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 23:44:07 -0500
Message-ID: <004501d8f4bf$1213fba0$363bf2e0$@pcorp.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQFgXZxpr0yOB+9uS1Xwc1lFBKthIAHDgsBQrxqmPDA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/004501d8f4bf%241213fba0%24363bf2e0%24%40pcorp.us>
Precedence: bulk

> "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us> writes:
> > My proposal is this.  If you think it's a good enough idea I can work
> > up a patch for this.
> > Extensions currently are allowed to specify a requires in the control
file.
> > I propose to use this information, to allow replacement of phrases
> > @extschema_nameofextension@  as a variable, where nameofextension has
> > to be one of the extensions listed in the requires.
> 
> I have a distinct sense of deja vu here.  I think this idea, or something
> isomorphic to it, was previously discussed with some other syntax details.
> I'm too lazy to go searching the archives right now, but I suggest that
you try to
> find that discussion and see if the discussed syntax seems better or worse
than
> what you mention.
> 
> I think it might've been along the line of @extschema:nameofextension@,
> which seems like it might be superior because colon isn't a valid
identifier
> character so there's less risk of ambiguity.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
I found the old discussion I recalled having and Stephen had suggested using

@extschema{'postgis'}@

On this thread --
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160425232251.GR10850@tamriel.snowman
.net

Is that the one you remember?

Thanks,
Regina