Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 at 22:42, David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> wrote:
> >> BINDIR
> >> DOCDIR
> >> HTMLDIR
> >> PKGINCLUDEDIR
> >> LOCALEDIR
> >> MANDIR
> >>
> >> I can imagine an extension wanting or needing to use any and all of these.
> >
> > Are these really all relevant to backend code?
>
> Oh I think so. Especially BINDIR; lots of extensions ship with binary applications. And most ship with docs, too (PGXS puts items listed in DOCS into DOCDIR). Some might also produce man pages (for their binaries), HTML docs, and other stuff. Maybe an FTE extension would include locale files?
>
> I find it pretty easy to imagine use cases for all of them. So much so that I wrote an extension binary distribution RFC[1] and its POC[2] around them.

Definitely agreed on BINDIR needing to be supported.

And while lots of extensions ship with docs, I expect this feature to
mostly be used in production environments to make deploying extensions
easier. And I'm not sure that many people care about deploying docs to
production (honestly lots of people would probably want to strip
them).

Still, for the sake of completeness it might make sense to support
this whole list in extension_destdir. (assuming it's easy to do)