Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues

Why do you need any explicit syntax? If the database is loading an SQL
file as a result of a LOAD MODULE command wouldn't it know to set
whatever internal state it needs to remember that?

--
Greg

On 22 Mar 2009, at 23:11, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
wrote:

>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> Tom> I doubt that we want to decorate every CREATE statement we've
> Tom> got with an optional MODULE clause; to name just one objection,
> Tom> it'd probably be impossible to do so without making MODULE a
> Tom> fully reserved word.
>
> Tom> What was discussed in the last go-round was some sort of
> Tom> state-dependent assignment of a module context. You could
> Tom> imagine either
> [snip]
>
> Tom> or something along the lines of
>
> Tom> SET current_module = modname;
>
> Tom> CREATE this;
> Tom> CREATE that;
> Tom> CREATE the_other;
>
> Tom> SET current_module = null;
>
> Tom> which is really more or less the same thing except that it makes
> Tom> the state concrete in the form of an examinable variable. In
> Tom> either case you'd need to define how the state would interact
> Tom> with transactions and errors.
>
> I like the SET version better. As for transactions and errors, I think
> that installing a module should be done inside a transaction anyway;
> and the usual GUC mechanisms should handle it if it was done using
> SET LOCAL, no?
>
> --
> Andrew.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers