Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> [ scratches head ... ] Why is your version generating so many >> unnecessary @extschema@ uses? > I just ran create table tomlist as select your query and create table > dimlist as select my query, then: > ... > No difference on @extschema@ use here. Well, when I did it I only got @extschema@ uses in tsearch2 (see the committed update scripts), so there's *something* different about what you're doing. I'm unsure what. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > [ scratches head ... ] Why is your version generating so many > unnecessary @extschema@ uses? I just ran create table tomlist as select your query and create table dimlist as select my query, then: dim=# select * from tomlist except select * from dimlist; desc -- ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator family @extschema@.gin_hstore_ops for access method gin; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator class @extschema@.btree_hstore_ops for access method btree; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator family @extschema@.hash_hstore_ops for access method hash; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator class @extschema@.gist_hstore_ops for access method gist; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator family @extschema@.gist_hstore_ops for access method gist; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD cast from text[] to @extschema@.hstore; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator class @extschema@.gin_hstore_ops for access method gin; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator family @extschema@.btree_hstore_ops for access method btree; ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD operator class @extschema@.hash_hstore_ops for access method hash; (9 rows) No difference on @extschema@ use here. dim=# select t.desc, d.desc from tomlist t natural join dimlist d limit 1; -[ RECORD 1 ]- desc | ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD type @extschema@.hstore; desc | ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD type @extschema@.hstore; dim=# select t.desc, d.desc from tomlist t natural join dimlist d limit 1 offset 10; -[ RECORD 1 ]--- desc | ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD function @extschema@.slice(@extschema@.hstore,text[]); desc | ALTER EXTENSION hstore ADD function @extschema@.slice(@extschema@.hstore,text[]); Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Do we want to add such a query in the docs to help pgfoundry authors to > write their own 'from unpackaged' scripts? [ scratches head ... ] Why is your version generating so many unnecessary @extschema@ uses? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
On 02/15/2011 04:49 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: Ah well sed makes it simpler to read, but it won't be usable in windows. You can make perl do the same stuff (and perl has psed anyway), and perl is required for MSVC builds. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes:
> Just for the archives' sake: the '@extschema@' business did turn out to
> be important, at least for tsearch2 where it's necessary to distinguish
> the objects it's dealing with from similarly-named objects in
> pg_catalog. So this is what I used to generate the "unpackaged"
> scripts. Some of them needed manual adjustment later to cover cases
> where 9.1 had diverged from 9.0, but the script could hardly be expected
> to know about that.
Good to know that even contrib needs that!
> #! /bin/sh
>
> MOD="$1"
>
> psql -d testdb -c "create extension $MOD"
>
> (
> echo "/* contrib/$MOD/$MOD--unpackaged--1.0.sql */"
> echo
>
> psql -A -t -d testdb -c "
> SELECT 'ALTER EXTENSION ' || E.extname || ' ADD '
> || replace(pg_describe_object(classid, objid, 0),
> N.nspname, '@extschema@')
> || ';'
> FROM pg_depend D
> JOIN pg_extension E ON D.refobjid = E.oid
> AND D.refclassid = E.tableoid
> JOIN pg_namespace N ON E.extnamespace = N.oid
> WHERE deptype = 'e' AND E.extname = '$MOD'
> ORDER BY D.objid
> " | sed -e 's/ADD cast from \(.*\) to \(.*\);/ADD cast (\1 as \2);/' \
> -e 's/ for access method / using /'
> ) > contrib/$MOD/$MOD--unpackaged--1.0.sql
Ah well sed makes it simpler to read, but it won't be usable in windows.
I now realize also that the second version of this query did some
useless array type filtering. Adding a replace() step in the query
would not be that ugly I guess, if we wanted to make it so.
Do we want to add such a query in the docs to help pgfoundry authors to
write their own 'from unpackaged' scripts?
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION extension_unpackaged_upgrade_script(text)
RETURNS SETOF text
LANGUAGE SQL
AS $$
WITH objs AS (
SELECT 'ALTER EXTENSION ' || E.extname || ' ADD '
|| replace(pg_describe_object(classid, objid, 0),
N.nspname, '@extschema@')
|| ';' AS d
FROM pg_depend D
JOIN pg_extension E ON D.refobjid = E.oid
AND D.refclassid = E.tableoid
JOIN pg_namespace N ON E.extnamespace = N.oid
WHERE deptype = 'e' AND E.extname = $1
ORDER BY D.objid
)
SELECT regexp_replace(replace(d, ' for access method ', ' using '),
'ADD cast from (.*) to (.*);',
E'ADD cast (\\1 as \\2);')
FROM objs
$$;
dim=# select * from extension_unpackaged_upgrade_script('lo');
extension_unpackaged_upgrade_script
-
ALTER EXTENSION lo ADD type @extschema@.lo;
ALTER EXTENSION lo ADD function @extschema@.lo_oid(@extschema@.lo);
ALTER EXTENSION lo ADD function @extschema@.lo_manage();
(3 rows)
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
I wrote: > Dimitri Fontaine writes: >> I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query. It should be >> providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged. > This seems overly complicated. I have a version of it that I'll publish > as soon as I've tested it on all the contrib modules ... Just for the archives' sake: the '@extschema@' business did turn out to be important, at least for tsearch2 where it's necessary to distinguish the objects it's dealing with from similarly-named objects in pg_catalog. So this is what I used to generate the "unpackaged" scripts. Some of them needed manual adjustment later to cover cases where 9.1 had diverged from 9.0, but the script could hardly be expected to know about that. #! /bin/sh MOD="$1" psql -d testdb -c "create extension $MOD" ( echo "/* contrib/$MOD/$MOD--unpackaged--1.0.sql */" echo psql -A -t -d testdb -c " SELECT 'ALTER EXTENSION ' || E.extname || ' ADD ' || replace(pg_describe_object(classid, objid, 0), N.nspname, '@extschema@') || ';' FROM pg_depend D JOIN pg_extension E ON D.refobjid = E.oid AND D.refclassid = E.tableoid JOIN pg_namespace N ON E.extnamespace = N.oid WHERE deptype = 'e' AND E.extname = '$MOD' ORDER BY D.objid " | sed -e 's/ADD cast from \(.*\) to \(.*\);/ADD cast (\1 as \2);/' \ -e 's/ for access method / using /' ) > contrib/$MOD/$MOD--unpackaged--1.0.sql regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > I don't really think that's a behavior we want to encourage. ISTM the > cases that are going to be trouble are paths you failed to think about, > and therefore what you want to do is look over the whole output set to > see if there are any surprising paths... Mmm, yes. Ok. -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >>> [ about omitting rows for which there is no update path ] >> Yeah, possibly. I'm a bit concerned about cases where the author meant >> to provide an update path and forgot: it would be fairly obvious in this >> representation but maybe you could keep making the same oversight if the >> row's not there at all. Also, it's easy enough to write "where path is >> not null" if you want to filter the rows that way. > I would expect the author to check with something like > WHERE installed = '1.0' and available = '1.2' I don't really think that's a behavior we want to encourage. ISTM the cases that are going to be trouble are paths you failed to think about, and therefore what you want to do is look over the whole output set to see if there are any surprising paths... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > I intentionally left out columns that seem like extension implementation > details rather than things users of the extension need to know. Hence, > no directory, encoding, or module_pathname. There's no fundamental > reason not to include these, I guess, although maybe there could be some > security objection to showing directory. But do we need 'em? I share your view on the directory and module_pathname, but though that maybe encoding could be the source of subtle errors and that users would be happy to know what PostgreSQL is using. But well, that's not holding enough water now that I think some more about it. > I was thinking the other way --- you can split it with > regexp_split_to_array (or regexp_split_to_table) if you want to, but > having a compact human-readable form is probably the most important > case. It's not a big deal either way though. Anyone else want to > vote? I'm not set one way or the other and won't share another opinion on that :) > Sorry, I only meant that in this example I put the rows coming from > single scripts first. I didn't mean to suggest that the function would > guarantee any particular output ordering. Ok. > Yeah, possibly. I'm a bit concerned about cases where the author meant > to provide an update path and forgot: it would be fairly obvious in this > representation but maybe you could keep making the same oversight if the > row's not there at all. Also, it's easy enough to write "where path is > not null" if you want to filter the rows that way. I would expect the author to check with something like WHERE installed = '1.0' and available = '1.2' But again, the preference here is about either "cluttering" the default output more than necessary or having to type a WHERE clause to double check your setup. No strong opinion here, just a preference… Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> and pg_available_extension_versions that produces a row per install >> script, with columns >> >> name >> version ((name, version) is primary key) >> comment >> requires >> relocatable >> schema >> >> where the last four columns can vary across versions due to secondary >> control files. > I like this primary key because that's also the one for debian stable > distributions :) Joking apart, aren't we missing the encoding somewhere? I intentionally left out columns that seem like extension implementation details rather than things users of the extension need to know. Hence, no directory, encoding, or module_pathname. There's no fundamental reason not to include these, I guess, although maybe there could be some security objection to showing directory. But do we need 'em? >> The output might look like this: >> >> 1.0 1.1 1.0--1.1 >> 1.1 1.2 1.1--1.2 >> unpackaged 1.0 unpackaged--1.0 >> 1.0 1.2 1.0--1.1--1.2 >> 1.0 unpackaged >> 1.1 1.0 >> 1.1 unpackaged >> 1.2 1.1 >> 1.2 1.0 >> 1.2 unpackaged >> unpackaged 1.1 unpackaged--1.0--1.1 >> unpackaged 1.2 unpackaged--1.0--1.1--1.2 > What about having this chain column be an array of version strings? If > you want to see it this way, use array_to_string(path, '--')⦠I was thinking the other way --- you can split it with regexp_split_to_array (or regexp_split_to_table) if you want to, but having a compact human-readable form is probably the most important case. It's not a big deal either way though. Anyone else want to vote? >> where the first three rows correspond to available update scripts and >> the rest are synthesized. > The ordering is not clearly apparent, but I don't think it matters. Sorry, I only meant that in this example I put the rows coming from single scripts first. I didn't mean to suggest that the function would guarantee any particular output ordering. >> (Looking at this, it looks like it could get pretty bulky pretty >> quickly. Maybe we should eliminate all rows in which the path would be >> NULL? Or just eliminate rows in which the target doesn't have an >> install script, which would remove the three rows with target = >> unpackaged in the above example?) > Removing NULL path rows seems the best option to me. Yeah, possibly. I'm a bit concerned about cases where the author meant to provide an update path and forgot: it would be fairly obvious in this representation but maybe you could keep making the same oversight if the row's not there at all. Also, it's easy enough to write "where path is not null" if you want to filter the rows that way. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > Thinking about this some more ... it seems like we now need two separate > views, because there is some information that could change per-version, > and some that really only makes sense at the per-extension level. Makes sense. > For instance, we could have pg_available_extensions that produces a row > per primary control file, with columns > > name(view's effective primary key) > default_version > installed_version (NULL if not installed) > comment (if one is present in primary control file) Check. > and pg_available_extension_versions that produces a row per install > script, with columns > > name > version ((name, version) is primary key) > comment > requires > relocatable > schema > > where the last four columns can vary across versions due to secondary > control files. I like this primary key because that's also the one for debian stable distributions :) Joking apart, aren't we missing the encoding somewhere? > Or we could combine these into just one view with pkey (name, version), > but then the default_version and installed_version columns would be the > same across all rows with the same extension name, which seems confusing > and unnormalized. Let's go with two views. Once we have that it's easy enough to LEFT JOIN if we want a summarized view. Maybe we could even revive \dX. Without pattern it would show the short form (pg_available_extension) and given a pattern pg_available_extension_versions. > I suggest instead that we invent a SRF, say > pg_extension_update_paths(extension_name text) returns setof record, > that returns a row for each pair of distinct version names found in > the extension's install and update scripts, with columns Agreed. > source version name > target other version name > pathupdate path from source to target, or NULL if none > > The output might look like this: > > 1.0 1.1 1.0--1.1 > 1.1 1.2 1.1--1.2 > unpackaged 1.0 unpackaged--1.0 > 1.0 1.2 1.0--1.1--1.2 > 1.0 unpackaged > 1.1 1.0 > 1.1 unpackaged > 1.2 1.1 > 1.2 1.0 > 1.2 unpackaged > unpackaged 1.1 unpackaged--1.0--1.1 > unpackaged 1.2 unpackaged--1.0--1.1--1.2 What about having this chain column be an array of version strings? If you want to see it this way, use array_to_string(path, '--')… > where the first three rows correspond to available update scripts and > the rest are synthesized. The ordering is not clearly apparent, but I don't think it matters. > (Looking at this, it looks like it could get pretty bulky pretty > quickly. Maybe we should eliminate all rows in which the path would be > NULL? Or just eliminate rows in which the target doesn't have an > install script, which would remove the three rows with target = > unpackaged in the above example?) Removing NULL path rows seems the best option to me. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> Also, I've been looking at the pg_available_extensions issue a bit. >> I don't yet have a proposal for exactly how we ought to redefine it, >> but I did notice that the existing code is terribly confused by >> secondary control files: it doesn't realize that they're not primary >> control files, so you get e.g. hstore and hstore-1.0 as separate >> listings. > I'd think that's it's a good idea if dealt with "correctly" because now > that ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE can deal with more than one target VERSION > I expect the view to show each available update here. Thinking about this some more ... it seems like we now need two separate views, because there is some information that could change per-version, and some that really only makes sense at the per-extension level. For instance, we could have pg_available_extensions that produces a row per primary control file, with columns name(view's effective primary key) default_version installed_version (NULL if not installed) comment (if one is present in primary control file) and pg_available_extension_versions that produces a row per install script, with columns name version ((name, version) is primary key) comment requires relocatable schema where the last four columns can vary across versions due to secondary control files. Or we could combine these into just one view with pkey (name, version), but then the default_version and installed_version columns would be the same across all rows with the same extension name, which seems confusing and unnormalized. > If possible adding the "update chain sequence" information as computed > in the code would be great. Because we can't ask people to figure that > out all by themselves, the best way to check your upgrading setup is > fine would be to run SELECT * FROM pg_available_extensions; and read the > result. I think this is probably a good thing to provide but it shouldn't go in either of the above views, on two grounds: (1) it's going to be relatively expensive to compute, and most people won't need it; (2) the views could only sensibly cover paths from current version to listed version, which isn't good enough. What an extension author actually wants to know is "have I introduced any undesirable update paths anywhere?" I suggest instead that we invent a SRF, say pg_extension_update_paths(extension_name text) returns setof record, that returns a row for each pair of distinct version names found in the extension's install and update scripts, with columns source version name target other version name pathupdate path from source to target, or NULL if none The output might look like this: 1.0 1.1 1.0--1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1--1.2 unpackaged 1.0 unpackaged--1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0--1.1--1.2 1.0 unpackaged 1.1 1.0 1.1 unpackaged 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 unpackaged unpackaged 1.1 unpackaged--1.0--1.1 unpackaged 1.2 unpackaged--1.0--1.1--1.2 where the first three rows correspond to available update scripts and the rest are synthesized. (Looking at this, it looks like it could get pretty bulky pretty quickly. Maybe we should eliminate all rows in which the path would be NULL? Or just eliminate rows in which the target doesn't have an install script, which would remove the three rows with target = unpackaged in the above example?) Thoughts? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
"David E. Wheeler" writes: > On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I suppose if you really wanted foo.sql to always be the head version, >> you could do something like "cp foo.sql foo--$VERSION.sql" as part of >> the build process in the Makefile. > That would be okay. Is $EXTVERSION still defined in the Makefile? ($VERSION > is the PostgreSQL version, of course). I haven't set the contrib makefiles up that way, but of course you could do it if you wanted to in your own makefiles. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I think after a couple of releases you'd be shipping something like > > foo--1.0.sql > foo--1.1.sql > foo--1.0--1.1.sql > foo--2.0.sql > foo--1.1--2.0.sql > > and it'll soon get to be a mess if your SCM doesn't clearly distinguish > which is which. > > Also, as I mentioned before, once you've branched off foo--1.1.sql > it's probably a mistake to be changing foo--1.0.sql anymore anyway. > > I suppose if you really wanted foo.sql to always be the head version, > you could do something like "cp foo.sql foo--$VERSION.sql" as part of > the build process in the Makefile. That would be okay. Is $EXTVERSION still defined in the Makefile? ($VERSION is the PostgreSQL version, of course). Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
"David E. Wheeler" writes: > On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> (2) I think that the normal use-case would not involve removing the old >> file, so this is moot anyhow. > Oh. So one normally will ship, for an extension "foo", only "foo.sql" and any > necssary upgrade scripts? I think after a couple of releases you'd be shipping something like foo--1.0.sql foo--1.1.sql foo--1.0--1.1.sql foo--2.0.sql foo--1.1--2.0.sql and it'll soon get to be a mess if your SCM doesn't clearly distinguish which is which. Also, as I mentioned before, once you've branched off foo--1.1.sql it's probably a mistake to be changing foo--1.0.sql anymore anyway. I suppose if you really wanted foo.sql to always be the head version, you could do something like "cp foo.sql foo--$VERSION.sql" as part of the build process in the Makefile. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I sure would like it if the install script with no version in it >> corresponded to the latest version. Otherwise, one must rename the file >> every time one does a release. And as you're noting, you lose Git history >> that way. > > (1) git does know it's a rename, it's just not default for git diff to > show it that way. I see, looks like one can `git diff --follow` to see it that way: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2314652/ > (2) I think that the normal use-case would not involve removing the old > file, so this is moot anyhow. Oh. So one normally will ship, for an extension "foo", only "foo.sql" and any necssary upgrade scripts? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
"David E. Wheeler" writes: > I sure would like it if the install script with no version in it corresponded > to the latest version. Otherwise, one must rename the file every time one > does a release. And as you're noting, you lose Git history that way. (1) git does know it's a rename, it's just not default for git diff to show it that way. (2) I think that the normal use-case would not involve removing the old file, so this is moot anyhow. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
On Feb 13, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > OK, so with that, attached is an example of the complete conversion diff > for a contrib module (hstore in particular). Although "git status" > reports hstore--1.0.sql as being a rename of hstore.sql.in, "git diff" > doesn't seem to be exceedingly bright about presenting it that way :-(. > But actually the change in that script other than renaming is just > removing the "set search_path" command and adjusting the header comment. I sure would like it if the install script with no version in it corresponded to the latest version. Otherwise, one must rename the file every time one does a release. And as you're noting, you lose Git history that way. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > Yes, it should be unnecessary given the search_path setup done by > execute_extension_script(). Also, I think that a relocatable > extension's script should not be subject to @extschema@ substitution, > no matter what. Oh I'm just realizing that my reasoning predates the search_path strong guarantees at CREATE EXTENSION time. >> I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query. It should be >> providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged. > > This seems overly complicated. I have a version of it that I'll publish > as soon as I've tested it on all the contrib modules ... Nice. I confess I worked out mine from my last patch where I still have the INTERNAL dependencies setup etc, so maybe that makes it more complex that it needs to be. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> OK, so with that, attached is an example of the complete conversion diff >> for a contrib module (hstore in particular). Although "git status" > I see you're not using the @extschema@ placeholder in the upgrade > script. It is intentional? Yes, it should be unnecessary given the search_path setup done by execute_extension_script(). Also, I think that a relocatable extension's script should not be subject to @extschema@ substitution, no matter what. > I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query. It should be > providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged. This seems overly complicated. I have a version of it that I'll publish as soon as I've tested it on all the contrib modules ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes:
>> Tom Lane writes:
>>> I think it's better to keep it working as a textual substitution.
Thinking about this some more, it has the advantage that the effects of
the control file settings are kept within the script file processing and
pg_extension catalog. The only backend impact is the dependency
tracking.
> OK, so with that, attached is an example of the complete conversion diff
> for a contrib module (hstore in particular). Although "git status"
I see you're not using the @extschema@ placeholder in the upgrade
script. It is intentional? It's been common wisdom and practice to
edit the SQL file of any contrib or third party module to have it
installed in your preferred schema…
> reports hstore--1.0.sql as being a rename of hstore.sql.in, "git diff"
> doesn't seem to be exceedingly bright about presenting it that way :-(.
> But actually the change in that script other than renaming is just
> removing the "set search_path" command and adjusting the header comment.
And we don't have to rely on hstore.sql.in file anymore as the change is
done by the backend side of things. That's a very good point for the
windows build system I think.
> Barring objections, I'll press on with fixing the rest of them.
I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query. It should be
providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged.
I took the time to finish this query (filter out array types, some
replacement in operator classes and families descriptions) because I
think it would be nice to offer it in the docs. It could even be
proposed as a function :)
I hope you'll find it useful, but it could well be you finished the
search&replace of all contribs already (ah, emacs keyboard macros).
CREATE EXTENSION hstore;
CREATE SCHEMA empty_place;
SET search_path TO empty_place;
WITH objs AS (
SELECT classid, 'ALTER EXTENSION ' || E.extname || ' ADD '
|| replace(pg_describe_object(classid, objid, 0),
N.nspname, '@extschema@')
|| ';' as sql
FROM pg_depend D
JOIN pg_extension E ON D.refobjid = E.oid
AND D.refclassid = E.tableoid
JOIN pg_namespace N ON E.extnamespace = N.oid
WHERE CASE WHEN classid = 'pg_catalog.pg_type'::regclass
THEN (SELECT typarray FROM pg_type WHERE oid=objid) != 0
ELSE true
END
AND deptype = 'e' AND E.extname = 'hstore'
)
SELECT
CASE WHEN classid IN ('pg_catalog.pg_opclass'::regclass,
'pg_catalog.pg_opfamily'::regclass)
THEN replace(sql, 'for access method', 'using')
ELSE sql
END
FROM objs;
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane 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. OK, so with that, attached is an example of the complete conversion diff for a contrib module (hstore in particular). Although "git status" reports hstore--1.0.sql as being a rename of hstore.sql.in, "git diff" doesn't seem to be exceedingly bright about presenting it that way :-(. But actually the change in that script other than renaming is just removing the "set search_path" command and adjusting the header comment. I've checked that regression tests pass and "create extension hstore from unpackaged" successfully upgrades from a 9.0 dump. I don't have the ability to check that it works on Windows too, but since we're not hacking pgxs.mk I doubt that there's anything to do to the Windows build process. Barring objections, I'll press on with fixing the rest of them. regards, tom lane diff --git a/contrib/hstore/.gitignore b/contrib/hstore/.gitignore index d7af95330c380d468c35f781f34de30ea05709a5..19b6c5ba425ca92d1bb371bf43d9cdae372f8c1a 100644 *** a/contrib/hstore/.gitignore --- b/contrib/hstore/.gitignore *** *** 1,3 - /hstore.sql # Generated subdirectories /results/ --- 1,2 diff --git a/contrib/hstore/Makefile b/contrib/hstore/Makefile index 1d533fdd60280b1e62610dd7b98cdfb4151de1b4..5badbdb714b60cd786cffa86526a405bccfd1ea0 100644 *** a/contrib/hstore/Makefile --- b/contrib/hstore/Makefile *** MODULE_big = hstore *** 4,11 OBJS = hstore_io.o hstore_op.o hstore_gist.o hstore_gin.o hstore_compat.o \ crc32.o ! DATA_built = hstore.sql ! DATA = uninstall_hstore.sql REGRESS = hstore ifdef USE_PGXS --- 4,11 OBJS = hstore_io.o hstore_op.o hstore_gist.o hstore_gin.o hstore_compat.o \ crc32.o ! EXTENSION = hstore ! DATA = hstore--1.0.sql hstore--unpackaged--1.0.sql REGRESS = hstore ifdef USE_PGXS diff --git a/contrib/hstore/expected/hstore.out b/contrib/hstore/expected/hstore.out index 354fff20fe2b24127ac9ec1ae9a20f72d628e256..083faf8d9c433ba9f34a95f65fed64c0079a6561 100644 *** a/contrib/hstore/expected/hstore.out --- b/contrib/hstore/expected/hstore.out *** *** 1,12 ! -- ! -- first, define the datatype. Turn off echoing so that expected file ! -- does not depend on contents of hstore.sql. ! -- ! SET client_min_messages = warning; ! \set ECHO none ! psql:hstore.sql:228: WARNING: => is deprecated as an operator name DETAIL: This name may be disallowed altogether in future versions of PostgreSQL. - RESET client_min_messages; set escape_string_warning=off; --hstore; select ''::hstore; --- 1,6 ! CREATE EXTENSION hstore; ! WARNING: => is deprecated as an operator name DETAIL: This name may be disallowed altogether in future versions of PostgreSQL. set escape_string_warning=off; --hstore; select ''::hstore; diff --git a/contrib/hstore/hstore--1.0.sql b/contrib/hstore/hstore--1.0.sql index ...d77b14286bdce8af49bdad9620e00c5c4ce827fe . *** a/contrib/hstore/hstore--1.0.sql --- b/contrib/hstore/hstore--1.0.sql *** *** 0 --- 1,527 + /* contrib/hstore/hstore--1.0.sql */ + + CREATE TYPE hstore; + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION hstore_in(cstring) + RETURNS hstore + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION hstore_out(hstore) + RETURNS cstring + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION hstore_recv(internal) + RETURNS hstore + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION hstore_send(hstore) + RETURNS bytea + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE TYPE hstore ( + INTERNALLENGTH = -1, + INPUT = hstore_in, + OUTPUT = hstore_out, + RECEIVE = hstore_recv, + SEND = hstore_send, + STORAGE = extended + ); + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION hstore_version_diag(hstore) + RETURNS integer + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME','hstore_version_diag' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION fetchval(hstore,text) + RETURNS text + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME','hstore_fetchval' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE OPERATOR -> ( + LEFTARG = hstore, + RIGHTARG = text, + PROCEDURE = fetchval + ); + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION slice_array(hstore,text[]) + RETURNS text[] + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME','hstore_slice_to_array' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE OPERATOR -> ( + LEFTARG = hstore, + RIGHTARG = text[], + PROCEDURE = slice_array + ); + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION slice(hstore,text[]) + RETURNS hstore + AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME','hstore_slice_to_hstore' + LANGUAGE C STRICT IMMUTABLE; + + CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCT
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> I'm hesitant to have any substitutions that happen unconditionally, >> but we could add a control parameter like >> module_pathname = '$libdir/hstore' >> and then things would be pretty clean. > Ok. Maybe the simpler would be to make the current control variable a > static backend variable so that EXT_CONTROL(module_pathname) is easy to > find out from anywhere (I see you got rid of some direct usage of static > variables with recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension() already). 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? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > Or are you suggesting substituting for MODULE_PATHNAME during CREATE > EXTENSION, and not during "make" at all? That would work I guess. That's my idea, sorry not having made it clear enough. We have $libdir which is expanded server-side AFAIUI, I though we would have $shlib expanded the same way and taken from some backend variable like with creating_extension. > I'm hesitant to have any substitutions that happen unconditionally, > but we could add a control parameter like > module_pathname = '$libdir/hstore' > and then things would be pretty clean. Ok. Maybe the simpler would be to make the current control variable a static backend variable so that EXT_CONTROL(module_pathname) is easy to find out from anywhere (I see you got rid of some direct usage of static variables with recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension() already). > I think we should still change the file naming conventions to use double > dashes, though, since there's more than one reason to want that. Will > work on that next. Great! Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> But contrib/spi is exactly the case where it *won't* work. We need to >> somehow figure out that $libdir/autoinc is what to substitute in >> autoinc-1.0.sql, $libdir/insert_username in insert_username-1.0.sql, >> etc. > Indeed. That's why I'm proposing to have that setup in the control > file, which is per extension, rather than in the common Makefile. How's that help? In a makefile building more than one extension, you'd still need a way to decide which extension the current script file is associated with. Or are you suggesting substituting for MODULE_PATHNAME during CREATE EXTENSION, and not during "make" at all? That would work I guess. I'm hesitant to have any substitutions that happen unconditionally, but we could add a control parameter like module_pathname = '$libdir/hstore' and then things would be pretty clean. I think we should still change the file naming conventions to use double dashes, though, since there's more than one reason to want that. Will work on that next. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: >> My take here is to way that in this case, the current (9.1) way to deal >> with the situation is to have multiple extensions when you have multiple >> shlibs. After all we know that multiple extensions from the same >> Makefile works, thanks to contrib/spi (I mean extension/spi). > > But contrib/spi is exactly the case where it *won't* work. We need to > somehow figure out that $libdir/autoinc is what to substitute in > autoinc-1.0.sql, $libdir/insert_username in insert_username-1.0.sql, > etc. Indeed. That's why I'm proposing to have that setup in the control file, which is per extension, rather than in the common Makefile. > Also, I've been looking at the pg_available_extensions issue a bit. > I don't yet have a proposal for exactly how we ought to redefine it, > but I did notice that the existing code is terribly confused by > secondary control files: it doesn't realize that they're not primary > control files, so you get e.g. hstore and hstore-1.0 as separate > listings. I'd think that's it's a good idea if dealt with "correctly" because now that ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE can deal with more than one target VERSION I expect the view to show each available update here. If possible adding the "update chain sequence" information as computed in the code would be great. Because we can't ask people to figure that out all by themselves, the best way to check your upgrading setup is fine would be to run SELECT * FROM pg_available_extensions; and read the result. > We could possibly work around that by giving secondary control files a > different extension, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's > just a bad idea to have a file naming rule in which it's ambiguous where > the extension name stops and the version name starts. Agreed. > I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names: > what if we use double dash as the name/version separator, ie the naming > conventions are like > extension--version.control > extension--version.sql > extension--oldversion-newversion.sql Yeah, something like that would work, so would maybe using ':' and forbidding one-letter extension names, but I'm not in a position to check that this won't confuse the windows we support too much. I see about no downside to the double dash proposal, that said. > Then we'd only have to forbid double dash in extension names, which > seems unlikely to be a problem for anybody. (I think we might also have > to forbid empty version names to make this bulletproof, but that doesn't > bother me much either.) Those look like sanity checks more than anything else, I'd welcome us having them. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > Right, the basic difficulty here is exactly that in a Makefile that's > building multiple shlibs, there is no easy way to decide which shlibs go > with which sql scripts. The existing implementation essentially relies > on the base name of the sql script matching the base name of the shlib. > Adding a single-valued shlib property wouldn't improve matters at all. My take here is to way that in this case, the current (9.1) way to deal with the situation is to have multiple extensions when you have multiple shlibs. After all we know that multiple extensions from the same Makefile works, thanks to contrib/spi (I mean extension/spi). And we even have inter-extensions dependencies in 9.1, so that's friendly enough I think. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
On Feb 12, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> How likely is *that*? > > Not very, but the rules are getting a bit complicated ... Doesn't seem complicated to me: 1. Use -- to separate extension name, old version, new version 2. Don't use - at the beginning or end of name or version number 3. Profit How hard is that? David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
"David E. Wheeler" writes: > On Feb 12, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm. I think we'd still have to disallow dash as the first or last >> character in a version name to make that unambiguous. Not sure it's >> worth the trouble. > How likely is *that*? Not very, but the rules are getting a bit complicated ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
On Feb 12, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" writes: >> On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names: >>> what if we use double dash as the name/version separator, > >> +1 You might even consider mandating a double-dash between versions, so that >> they could have dashes: >>extension--oldversion--newversion.sql > > Hm. I think we'd still have to disallow dash as the first or last > character in a version name to make that unambiguous. Not sure it's > worth the trouble. How likely is *that*? David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
"David E. Wheeler" writes: > On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names: >> what if we use double dash as the name/version separator, > +1 You might even consider mandating a double-dash between versions, so that > they could have dashes: > extension--oldversion--newversion.sql Hm. I think we'd still have to disallow dash as the first or last character in a version name to make that unambiguous. Not sure it's worth the trouble. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names: > what if we use double dash as the name/version separator, ie the naming > conventions are like > extension--version.control > extension--version.sql > extension--oldversion-newversion.sql > Then we'd only have to forbid double dash in extension names, which > seems unlikely to be a problem for anybody. (I think we might also have > to forbid empty version names to make this bulletproof, but that doesn't > bother me much either.) +1 You might even consider mandating a double-dash between versions, so that they could have dashes: extension--oldversion--newversion.sql We don't have to worry about the length of the file name, do we? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> Right, the basic difficulty here is exactly that in a Makefile that's >> building multiple shlibs, there is no easy way to decide which shlibs go >> with which sql scripts. The existing implementation essentially relies >> on the base name of the sql script matching the base name of the shlib. >> Adding a single-valued shlib property wouldn't improve matters at all. > My take here is to way that in this case, the current (9.1) way to deal > with the situation is to have multiple extensions when you have multiple > shlibs. After all we know that multiple extensions from the same > Makefile works, thanks to contrib/spi (I mean extension/spi). But contrib/spi is exactly the case where it *won't* work. We need to somehow figure out that $libdir/autoinc is what to substitute in autoinc-1.0.sql, $libdir/insert_username in insert_username-1.0.sql, etc. Also, I've been looking at the pg_available_extensions issue a bit. I don't yet have a proposal for exactly how we ought to redefine it, but I did notice that the existing code is terribly confused by secondary control files: it doesn't realize that they're not primary control files, so you get e.g. hstore and hstore-1.0 as separate listings. We could possibly work around that by giving secondary control files a different extension, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's just a bad idea to have a file naming rule in which it's ambiguous where the extension name stops and the version name starts. I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names: what if we use double dash as the name/version separator, ie the naming conventions are like extension--version.control extension--version.sql extension--oldversion-newversion.sql Then we'd only have to forbid double dash in extension names, which seems unlikely to be a problem for anybody. (I think we might also have to forbid empty version names to make this bulletproof, but that doesn't bother me much either.) Comments? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> pgxs.mk will substitute for MODULE_PATHNAME in it is >> "$libdir/hstore-1.0" ... not exactly what's wanted. This is because the >> transformation rule depends on $*, ie the base name of the input file. > A though that is occurring to me here would be to add a shlib property > in the control file and have the SQL script use $libdir/$shlib, or even > $shlib maybe. That would only work for extensions scripts, and even > only for those containing a single .so. Right, the basic difficulty here is exactly that in a Makefile that's building multiple shlibs, there is no easy way to decide which shlibs go with which sql scripts. The existing implementation essentially relies on the base name of the sql script matching the base name of the shlib. Adding a single-valued shlib property wouldn't improve matters at all. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Tom Lane writes: > pgxs.mk will substitute for MODULE_PATHNAME in it is > "$libdir/hstore-1.0" ... not exactly what's wanted. This is because the > transformation rule depends on $*, ie the base name of the input file. [...] > On balance #3 seems the least bad, but I wonder if anyone sees this > choice differently or has another solution that I didn't think of. A though that is occurring to me here would be to add a shlib property in the control file and have the SQL script use $libdir/$shlib, or even $shlib maybe. That would only work for extensions scripts, and even only for those containing a single .so. But the only counter example I know of is PGQ, and its install script is ran by its command line tools. So PGQ would now ship 2 or 3 extensions with some dependencies, each with its own .so. Seems cleaner for me anyway. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
