On 3/22/22 13:08, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 3/22/22 12:58, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I only suggested removing the error check in _PG_init, not >>> changing the way the test works. >> Mark and I discussed this offline, and decided there was no requirement >> for the module to be preloaded. Do you have a different opinion? > No, I was actually about to make the same point: it seems to me there > are arguable use-cases for loading it shared, loading it per-session > (perhaps via ALTER USER SET or ALTER DATABASE SET to target particular > users/DBs), or even manually LOADing it. So the module code should > not be prejudging how it's used. > > On reflection, I withdraw my complaint about changing the way the > test script loads the module. Getting rid of the need for a custom > .conf file simplifies the test module, and that seems good. > So I'm on board with Mark's patch now. > >
OK, I have pushed that. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
