Re: "Extension" versus "module"
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "Extension" versus "module" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25496.1297701172@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: "Extension" versus "module" (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes: > Another concern has to do with PLs. We said that with the dependency > mechanism it would be good to have PLs be EXTENSIONs. But those are > core provided extensions, one of them installed by default. > If we make PLs extensions, we might also want to have CREATE LANGUAGE > either ERROR out or silently do the CREATE EXTENSION instead, meaning > that CREATE LANGUAGE behavior would depend on creating_extension. > Sounds like a crock but ensures compatibility. Yeah. I was sort of wondering whether we could get rid of pg_pltemplate altogether, and instead rely on the extension mechanism to package up the correct parameters for installing a language. However, one thing that'd have to be solved before going very far in this direction is the question of allowing CREATE EXTENSION to non-superusers. We'd at least need to be able to duplicate the current functionality of allowing CREATE LANGUAGE to database owners (with an override available to the DBA). This seems like a matter for a separate thread though, and not on pgsql-docs. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: