Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> We've been talking about this magical "proper module facility" for a few
>> releases now... are we still opposed to putting contrib modules in thier own
>> schema?
>
> I'm hesitant to do that when we don't yet have either a design or a
> migration plan for the module facility.  We might find we'd shot
> ourselves in the foot, or at least complicated the migration situation
> unduly.

I think there have been a few designs proposed, but I think part of
the problem is a lack of agreement on the requirements.  "module
facility" seems to mean a lot of different things to different people.

...Robert