| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sandro Santilli <strk(at)kbt(dot)io> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel(at)lists(dot)osgeo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [postgis-devel] About EXTENSION from UNPACKAGED on PostgreSQL 13 |
| Date: | 2020-02-26 14:35:46 |
| Message-ID: | ECABA4D9-42D3-4629-9AA3-7B67AFC32EDA@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 26 Feb 2020, at 15:13, Sandro Santilli <strk(at)kbt(dot)io> wrote:
> On pgsql-hackers we only want to find a future-proof way to "package
> existing objects into an extension".
What is the longterm goal of PostGIS, to use this as a stepping stone to reach
a point where no unpackaged extensions exist; or find a way to continue with
the current setup except with syntax that isn't going away?
> If the syntax
> `CREATE EXTENSION <extname> FROM UNPACKAGED`
> has gone, would it be ok for just:
> `CREATE EXTENSION <extname>`
> to intercept unpackaged objects and package them ?
Overloading the same syntax for creating packaged as well as unpackaged
extensions sounds like the wrong path to go down.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | remi duval | 2020-02-26 14:53:55 | Re: proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-02-26 14:29:18 | Re: Commit fest manager for 2020-03 |