| From: | Chapman Flack <jcflack(at)acm(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix |
| Date: | 2024-05-15 17:58:54 |
| Message-ID: | 6644F7DE.9050704@acm.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/15/24 13:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> if we tell people to write
>
> PG_MODULE_MAGIC;
> #undef TEXTDOMAIN
> #define TEXTDOMAIN PG_TEXTDOMAIN("hstore")
>
> then that's 100% backwards compatible and they don't need any
> version-testing ifdef's.
OT for this thread, but related: supposing out-of-core extensions
participate increasingly in NLS, would they really want to use
the PG_TEXTDOMAIN macro?
That munges the supplied domain name with PG's major version and
.so version numbers.
Were such versioning wanted for an out-of-core extension's message
catalogs, wouldn't the extension's own versioning be better suited?
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-15 18:00:12 | Re: psql JSON output format |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-05-15 17:45:30 | Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix |