Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
От | Andrew Gierth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87d0w5oekn.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: Tom> BTW, it's somewhat interesting to think about whether we ought to Tom> change the coding conventions so that extensions refer to their Tom> own headers with a subdirectory, e.g., #include "bloom/bloom.h". Tom> Having done that, all of contrib could build with a single Tom> centrally-provided -I switch pointing at BUILDDIR/contrib/, and Tom> there would be a path to allowing the code to build out of tree by Tom> pointing that common -I at $(includedir_server)/ or Tom> $(includedir_server)/MODULEDIR. This seems like it could be a lot Tom> less messy as we accrete more cross-module references. I'm slightly skeptical of this because it could cause unexpected issues when you rebuild (especially in the PGXS case) a module that has already been installed; without care, you'd end up getting the module's own headers from the installed version rather than the one being built, which would be very bad. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: