Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Date: 2018-07-23 16:12:30
Message-ID: 17977.1532362350@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Also, let's recall that the point of this exercise is that you want to
> install the header files so that you can build things (another
> extension) that somehow interacts with those extensions. Then, even if
> you put things in separate directories per extension, you still need to
> make sure that all the installed header files don't clash, since you'll
> be adding the -I options of several of them. In a way, doing it this
> way will make things less robust, since it will appear to give extension
> authors license to use generic header names.

Personally, I'd recommend using *one* -I switch and having .c files
reference extension headers with #include "extensionname/headername.h".

As I said before, I think that we should change the existing contrib
modules to be coded likewise, all using a single -I switch that points
at SRCDIR/contrib. That'd help give people the right coding model
to follow.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-07-23 16:13:01 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-07-23 16:11:13 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions