* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote: > This sounds like Inline Extensions to me, which was previously proposed.
I've not looked at that proposal very carefully, but I agree that what
we're describing is a lot closer to 'inline extensions' than 'extension
templates'.
> If I recall, that proposal trailed off because of issues with
> dump/reload. If you dump the contents of the extension, it's not really
> an extension; but if you don't, then the administrator can't back up the
> database (because he might not have all of the extension templates for
> the extensions installed). That's when the idea appeared for extension
> templates stored in the catalog, so that the administrator would always
> have all of the necessary templates present.
When it comes to dump/reload, I'd much rather see a mechanism which uses
our deep understanding of the extension's objects (as database objects)
to implement the dump/reload than a text blob which is carried forward
from major version to major version and may even fail to run. I
realize that's different from extension files which are out on the
filesystem, but I do not see that as a bad thing.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
