Re: support for CREATE MODULE

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 08:53:15AM -0800, Swaha Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
>     Hm. If the functional requirement is "group objects without needing
>     any out-in-the-filesystem infrastructure", then I could see defining
>     a module as being exactly like an extension except there's no such
>     infrastructure --- and hence no concept of versions, plus pg_dump
>     needs to act differently.  That's probably enough semantic difference
>     to justify using a separate word, even if we can share a lot of
>     code infrastructure.
> 
> Then as a first cut for modules, could we add CREATE MODULE
> syntax which adds an entry to pg_extension like CREATE EXTENSION
> does? And also add a new column to pg_extension to distinguish 
> modules from extensions. 
> 
> The three-part path name resolution for functions would remain the 
> same, nothing would need to change there because of modules.
> 
> Would that be an acceptable direction to go?

Well, that would allow us to have CREATE EXTENSION syntax, but what
would it do that CREATE SCHEMA does not?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.