From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension
 scripts
In-reply-to: <003001d8f4ae$402282c0$c0678840$@pcorp.us>
References: <003001d8f4ae$402282c0$c0678840$@pcorp.us>
Comments: In-reply-to "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us>
	message dated "Wed, 09 Nov 2022 21:43:43 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <79299.1668052170.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 22:49:30 -0500
Message-ID: <79300.1668052170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/79300.1668052170%40sss.pgh.pa.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