Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2024-05-15 12:54:45 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote: >> But I'd bet, within the fraction of the population that does use it, >> it is already a short string that looks a whole lot like the name >> of the extension. So maybe enhancing the documentation and making it >> easy to set up would achieve much of the objective here.
> The likely outcome would IMO be that some extensions will have the data, > others not. Whereas inferring the information from our side will give you > something reliable. > But I also just don't think it's something that architecturally fits together > that well. If we either had TEXTDOMAIN reliably set across extensions or it'd > architecturally be pretty, I'd go for it, but imo it's neither. There is one advantage over my suggestion of changing PG_MODULE_MAGIC: if we tell people to write PG_MODULE_MAGIC; #undef TEXTDOMAIN #define TEXTDOMAIN PG_TEXTDOMAIN("hstore") then that's 100% backwards compatible and they don't need any version-testing ifdef's. I still think that the kind of infrastructure Andres proposes is way overkill compared to the value, plus it's almost certainly going to have a bunch of platform-specific problems to solve. So I think Peter's thought is worth pursuing. regards, tom lane