Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Yes, it should be unnecessary given the search_path setup done by
> execute_extension_script(). Also, I think that a relocatable
> extension's script should not be subject to @extschema@ substitution,
> no matter what.

Oh I'm just realizing that my reasoning predates the search_path strong
guarantees at CREATE EXTENSION time.

>> I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query. It should be
>> providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged.
>
> This seems overly complicated. I have a version of it that I'll publish
> as soon as I've tested it on all the contrib modules ...

Nice. I confess I worked out mine from my last patch where I still have
the INTERNAL dependencies setup etc, so maybe that makes it more complex
that it needs to be.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support