"Regina Obe" <l...@pcorp.us> writes:
> My proposal is this. If you think it's a good enough idea I can work up a
> patch for this.
> Extensions currently are allowed to specify a requires in the control file.
> I propose to use this information, to allow replacement of phrases
> @extschema_nameofextension@ as a variable, where nameofextension has to be
> one of the extensions listed in the requires.
I have a distinct sense of deja vu here. I think this idea, or something
isomorphic to it, was previously discussed with some other syntax details.
I'm too lazy to go searching the archives right now, but I suggest that
you try to find that discussion and see if the discussed syntax seems
better or worse than what you mention.
I think it might've been along the line of @extschema:nameofextension@,
which seems like it might be superior because colon isn't a valid
identifier character so there's less risk of ambiguity.
regards, tom lane
