* Dimitri Fontaine (dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr) wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > > I think we should get rid of the module_pathname business, and > > extensions' SQL files should just refer to the base file name and rely > > on the dynamic library path to find the files. What would we lose if we > > did that? > > Control over *which* mylib.so file gets loaded for a specific sql > script. That's the whole namespace issue Stephen is worried about.
Indeed. > If you're testing the new version of an extension before installing it > properly, then you will have the current and the new versions of the > .so, with the exact same name, at different places. Hrm. This makes me wonder if there was a way we could check a .so against the definition of what it "should" be in the control file. As in, somehow include the extension name and version in the PG_MODULE_MAGIC. That could be good on a couple of levels.. > Note that when using base file name only, then you could also have a > clash with a dynamic library of the same name installed on the system, > even if not made to be loaded by PostgreSQL. Such as addressing this- perhaps with a GUC that says "only load .so's that have a PG_MODULE_MAGIC and whose extension names/versions match what is in the associated control file". > Some extensions are using way too generic names. Hint: prefix.so. Agreed. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature