Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Date: 2018-08-01 02:44:32
Message-ID: 27744.1533091472@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Peter> I'm missing some guidance what an extension using those headers
> Peter> is supposed to do. How does it get the right -I options?

> If your extension is relying on pg11+, or you have checked the pg
> version when constructing the makefile, you can just do:
> PG_CPPFLAGS += -I$(includedir_server)/extension/hstore
> and #include "hstore.h" will work.

I remain of the opinion that it'd be smarter to do

PG_CPPFLAGS += -I$(includedir_server)/extension

then

#include "hstore/hstore.h"

This way requires fewer -I options and is far more robust against header
name conflicts.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2018-08-01 02:55:52 Re: pg_upgrade from 9.4 to 10.4
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-08-01 02:22:16 Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for PostgreSQL