Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Dimitri Fontaine (dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr) wrote:
>> Then as soon as we are able to CREATE EXTENSION mystuff; without ever
>> pre-installing files on the file system as root, then we would like to
>> be able to do just that even with binary modules.
> I really just don't see this as being either particularly useful nor
> feasible within a reasonable amount of effort. Shared libraries are
> really the perview of the OS packaging system.
Yes, exactly. What's more, you're going to face huge push-back from
vendors who are concerned about security (which is most of them).
If there were such a feature, it would end up disabled, one way or
another, in a large fraction of installations. That would make it
impractical to use anyway for most extension authors. I don't think
it's good project policy to fragment the user base that way.
I'm on board with the notion of an all-in-the-database extension
mechanism for extensions that consist solely of SQL objects. But
not for ones that need a .so somewhere.
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
