On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > So if we do it this way, then we should pick a new name, like "package".
That was my first reaction as well, when I looked at this a few years ago, but I've since backed away from that position. You're certainly correct that it's awkward to have a single kind of object that behaves in two radically different ways, but it's also pretty awkward to have the same "stuff" installed as one of two completely different types of objects depending on who installed it and how. If we're targeting deployment of user-written application code, then I can see that it might make sense to have a different concept than "extension" for that, because arguably it's a different problem, though it's no longer clear to me that it's all that much different. But if we're talking about deployment of the same PGXN code (or wherever upstream lives) either by a DBA who is also the sysadmin (and can thus run make install or yum install) or one who is not (and thus wishes to proceed entirely via libpq) then making those two different concepts seems like it might be slicing awfully thin. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
