From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for CREATE MODULE? |
Date: | 2021-06-02 15:11:42 |
Message-ID: | 3cb12d67-c94d-375b-d4a1-18441f2abd25@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/2/21 10:43 AM, Jim Mlodgenski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:58 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I wonder whether it'd be better to consider modules as a kind of
>> extension, or at least things with the same sort of ownership relations
>> as extensions have.
>
> That would solve the problem of associating objects which is the larger
> problem for users today. The objects can all live in their respective
> schemas with the module tying them all together.
Maybe something similar to "CREATE EXTENSION ... FROM unpackaged"?
Something like:
CREATE EXTENSION myfoo; /* shell extension */
ALTER EXTENSION myfoo ADD type ...;
ALTER EXTENSION myfoo ADD function ...;
...
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-02 15:14:36 | Re: Support for CREATE MODULE? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-06-02 15:07:30 | Re: Support for CREATE MODULE? |