* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote: > This sounds like Inline Extensions to me, which was previously proposed.
I've not looked at that proposal very carefully, but I agree that what we're describing is a lot closer to 'inline extensions' than 'extension templates'. > If I recall, that proposal trailed off because of issues with > dump/reload. If you dump the contents of the extension, it's not really > an extension; but if you don't, then the administrator can't back up the > database (because he might not have all of the extension templates for > the extensions installed). That's when the idea appeared for extension > templates stored in the catalog, so that the administrator would always > have all of the necessary templates present. When it comes to dump/reload, I'd much rather see a mechanism which uses our deep understanding of the extension's objects (as database objects) to implement the dump/reload than a text blob which is carried forward from major version to major version and may even fail to run. I realize that's different from extension files which are out on the filesystem, but I do not see that as a bad thing. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature