Re: Quick Extensions Question

On 03.03.2011 18:30, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I think that it's not a good idea to devote too much energy to this
>>> problem right now, anyway. [ we need to get to beta ASAP, instead ]
>>
>> I hear you, but once we get to beta, or even the last alpha, it's going
>> to be very hard to make changes that would interfere with people doing
>> upgrades or dump/restores. If we don't do something about the language-
>> as-extension situation right now, the window will be closed until 9.2.
>
> So what? AFAIK the extension patch hasn't broken anything here that
> used to work. People can still install languages the way they always
> have. What we're talking about here is a way of installing languages
> that is arguably nicer than what they are doing now.

IMHO the main advantage of having languages as extensions is that you
could define a dependency on a language.

We've been talking about PLs, but what about the other thing David
asked: could we have extension entries for compile-time options like SSL
or libxml, so that you could define a dependency on them?

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com