Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

 > On 02.07.18 15:26, Tom Lane wrote:
 >> FWIW, I agree with Andres' thought that each contrib module should
 >> have its own subdirectory under $(includedir_server). Otherwise
 >> we're going to be faced with questions about whether .h files need
 >> to be renamed because they're not globally unique enough.

 Peter> Then they perhaps should be renamed. That seems like a much
 Peter> simpler solution.

Personally I think that more -I options is less pain than having to
rename things or deal with conflicts.

Where exactly are you suggesting that they should be installed? Directly
in $(installdir_server), or in $(installdir_server)/extension or
equivalent?

 Peter> The use case being discussed here is installing a data type
 Peter> extension's header so you can write a transform for it. The
 Peter> extension's name as well as the data type's own name already
 Peter> have to be pretty much globally unique if you want it to be
 Peter> useful. So it doesn't seem very difficult to me to have the
 Peter> extension install a single header file with that same name.

That's assuming a single header file, which might be a bit more
restrictive than absolutely necessary.

 Peter> The other side of this is that the PLs have to install their
 Peter> header files. Which the in-core PLs already do. Would we we want
 Peter> to move their header files under a new per-extension directory
 Peter> scheme?

The in-core PLs could reasonably be grandfathered in in their current
locations, at least for now.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)