Re: support for CREATE MODULE
От | Swaha Miller |
---|---|
Тема | Re: support for CREATE MODULE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPXknY7CosyXKxBr-VppKkwxS93xoQBjWJ3Afy=g3vzihe9Xcw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: support for CREATE MODULE (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: support for CREATE MODULE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Hm. If the functional requirement is "group objects without needing
any out-in-the-filesystem infrastructure", then I could see defining
a module as being exactly like an extension except there's no such
infrastructure --- and hence no concept of versions, plus pg_dump
needs to act differently. That's probably enough semantic difference
to justify using a separate word, even if we can share a lot of
code infrastructure.
Then as a first cut for modules, could we add CREATE MODULE
syntax which adds an entry to pg_extension like CREATE EXTENSION
does? And also add a new column to pg_extension to distinguish
modules from extensions.
The three-part path name resolution for functions would remain the
same, nothing would need to change there because of modules.
Would that be an acceptable direction to go?
Swaha
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: