Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

Why do you need any explicit syntax? If the database is loading an SQL  
file as a result of a LOAD MODULE command wouldn't it know to set  
whatever internal state it needs to remember that?



-- 
Greg


On 22 Mar 2009, at 23:11, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>  
wrote:

>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>
> Tom> I doubt that we want to decorate every CREATE statement we've
> Tom> got with an optional MODULE clause; to name just one objection,
> Tom> it'd probably be impossible to do so without making MODULE a
> Tom> fully reserved word.
>
> Tom> What was discussed in the last go-round was some sort of
> Tom> state-dependent assignment of a module context.  You could
> Tom> imagine either
> [snip]
>
> Tom> or something along the lines of
>
> Tom>    SET current_module = modname;
>
> Tom>    CREATE this;
> Tom>    CREATE that;
> Tom>    CREATE the_other;
>
> Tom>    SET current_module = null;
>
> Tom> which is really more or less the same thing except that it makes
> Tom> the state concrete in the form of an examinable variable.  In
> Tom> either case you'd need to define how the state would interact
> Tom> with transactions and errors.
>
> I like the SET version better. As for transactions and errors, I think
> that installing a module should be done inside a transaction anyway;
> and the usual GUC mechanisms should handle it if it was done using
> SET LOCAL, no?
>
> -- 
> Andrew.
>
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers