Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:55:30 -0700
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Message-ID: <20180723155530.r5r72i2xtcs2d5fj@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <87y3euomjh.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
 <ee05ea4c-3d5b-0ec6-8daa-3ec66f021076@2ndquadrant.com>
 <87tvpinfr4.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
 <63444.1530537990@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <12ba9c72-504f-b911-f0ce-1dff2826fa5b@2ndquadrant.com>
 <87k1q8kokq.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
 <20180723014208.GE27724@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20180723032405.GF2854@paquier.xyz>
 <21149.1532319353@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <dc5ad1a1-be01-ea26-1bb1-a6313cc0fffd@2ndquadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dc5ad1a1-be01-ea26-1bb1-a6313cc0fffd@2ndquadrant.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-07-23 17:22:16 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 23.07.18 06:15, 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).
> 
> Nobody said anything about one-file-per-extension.  You can of course
> have hstore_this.h and hstore_that.h or if you want to have many, use
> postgis/this.h and postgis/that.h.  That's how every C package in the
> world works.  We don't need to legislate further here other than, use
> sensible naming.

PGXS provides a certain way of doing things. It's far from insane for us
to procscribe that we go for $extension/.  I fail to see any sort of
advantage of using $extension_$header.h. It only serves to create
additional work.


> Also, let's recall that the point of this exercise is that you want to
> install the header files so that you can build things (another
> extension) that somehow interacts with those extensions.  Then, even if
> you put things in separate directories per extension, you still need to
> make sure that all the installed header files don't clash, since you'll
> be adding the -I options of several of them.

I'd suggest just using the name with the $extension/ prefix going
forward.


> > 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.
> 
> Certainly a new feature.  I suggest submitting it to the next commit fest.

Given that there seems to be fairly widespread agreement, anyone that
commented but you, and the patch has been reviewed, I see zero reason to
wait for the next CF for a committer's patch.

Greetings,

Andres Freund