From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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 15:19:41 |
Message-ID: | m2r49vnuuq.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> 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).
Last time I talked with vendors, they were working in the Open Shift
team at Red Hat, and they actually asked me to offer them the ability
you're refusing, to let them enable a better security model.
The way they use cgroups and SELinux means that they want to be able to
load shared binaries from system user places.
> 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.
That point about fragmentation is a concern I share.
> 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.
Thanks for restating your position.
The current patch offers a feature that only works with SQL objects,
it's currently completely useless as soon as there's a .so involved.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-02 15:21:59 | Re: Draft release notes for 9.3.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-02 15:13:45 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |