On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 02:20:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes: >> That's a reasonable point. I'll go ahead an explore some options for >> something along those lines. A couple of questions immediately come to >> mind. For example, should this configuration option just cause these >> functions to ERROR, or should it compile them out? > > Letting them be present but throw error is likely to be far less > painful than the other way, because then you don't need a separate > set of SQL-visible object definitions. You could, in fact, imagine > jacking up an existing database and driving a set of locked-down > binaries under it --- or vice versa. If there have to be different > versions of the extension SQL files for the two cases then everything > gets way hairier, both for developers and users.
Agreed. I'll do it that way. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
