Re: [HACKERS] Generalized concept of modules

2006-06-03 Thread PFC
Think about version API compatibility. Suppose you have a working database on server A which uses module foo version 1. Some time passes, you buy another server B and install postgres on it. Meanwhile the module foo has evolved into version 2 which is cooler, but has some minor A

Re: [HACKERS] Generalized concept of modules

2006-06-01 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > Well, in that case I'd like to give some concrete suggestions: > 1. The $libdir in future may be used to find SQL scripts as well as > shared libraries. They'll have different extensions so no possibility > of conflict. No, it needs to be a separate directory, an

Re: [HACKERS] Generalized concept of modules

2006-06-01 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 05:33:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > > While you do have a good point about non-binary modules, our module > > handling need some help IMHO. For example, the current hack for CREATE > > LANGUAGE to fix things caused by old pg_dumps. I think t

[HACKERS] Generalized concept of modules

2006-05-31 Thread Tom Lane
[ moving this thread to -hackers ] Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > While you do have a good point about non-binary modules, our module > handling need some help IMHO. For example, the current hack for CREATE > LANGUAGE to fix things caused by old pg_dumps. I think that's the > totally wrong appr