Re: Finer Extension dependencies

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>> At the very least, I would suggest that feature names are per-extension.

>> Yeah, I had about come to that conclusion too. A global namespace for
>> them would be a mistake given lack of central coordination.

> That's how I did it first, but Alvaro opposed to that because it allows
> for more than one extension to provide for the same feature name.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-03/msg01425.php

Right, but the question that has to be considered is how often would
that be intentional as opposed to an undesirable name collision.
I think Hitoshi was right upthread that it will seldom if ever be
the case that somebody is independently reimplementing somebody
else's API, so the use-case for intentional substitution seems thin.

regards, tom lane