On 2018-11-03 14:39:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >> Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> writes: > >>> Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g. > >>> 'rbt_*' to avoid this clash? > > > ISTM this specific case we could solve the issue by opening plruby.so / > > extension sos with RTLD_DEEPBIND. That doesn't work if ruby extensions > > that are loaded later use rb_iterate, but should work for the case above. > > Doesn't work on non-glibc platforms, though.
Yea, but I'm not sure there's anything portable to do about such cases :/ > > On 2018-11-03 14:19:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> That's not terribly appetizing, because it essentially means we're giving > >> Ruby (and potentially every other library on the planet) veto power over > >> our function namespace. That does not scale, especially not when the > >> feedback loop has a time constant measured in years :-( > >> I don't have a huge objection to renaming the rbtree functions, other > >> than the precedent it sets ... > > > I don't mind the precedent that much, but isn't that also not unlikely > > to break other extensions that use those functions? > > I rather doubt there are any. Also, if there are, the RTLD_DEEPBIND > solution would break them too, no? Why would it break? Deepbind just means the to-be-opened .so is put first in the search path, if there's no match it'll still look in other sos. Greetings, Andres Freund