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
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 |