Re: Extension Templates S03E11

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extension Templates S03E11
Date: 2013-12-02 15:13:45
Message-ID: 5886.1385997225@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Dimitri Fontaine (dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-12-02 15:19:41 Re: Extension Templates S03E11
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-12-02 15:13:08 Re: Extension Templates S03E11