Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date: 2011-02-13 18:41:25
Message-ID: m2zkpzsroq.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I think it's better to keep it working as a textual substitution.
> That poses the least risk of breaking scripts that work today ---
> who's to say that somebody might not be relying on the substitution
> happening someplace else than CREATE FUNCTION's shlib string?

Fair enough, I suppose. So +1 from me, FWIW.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-13 19:34:17 Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-02-13 18:41:11 Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw