Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:39:40 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Message-ID: <20180723043940.dc4s2qv6lefllg2d@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <21149.1532319353@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-Jul-23, Tom Lane wrote:

> 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.

Frankly, I'd rather make things as easy as possible for third-party
extension writers.  I'd go as far as backpatching further (considering
transforms were introduced in 9.5) but I hesitate on that, because of
the packagers argument.  pg11 seems fair game to me, though.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services