2009/4/2 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2009/4/2 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> So I'm thinking this is really unnecessary and we should leave well >>> enough alone. > >> I see it. I thing , an safety of this exception should be solved only >> by programmer. It's important to release all hooks, and then raise an >> exception. It is in developer responsibility. > > Well, if the init function is sufficiently carefully coded to back out > just the changes it's managed to apply, then good for it. But we still > aren't losing much by leaving dfmgr as-is. >
Maybe an safe minimum is cleaning symbols table without closing library. Then the code from lib will be accessible, but functionality will be disabled (for Postgres)? regards Pavel Stehule > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
