Re: Where to load modules from?

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Where to load modules from?
Date: 2013-09-19 20:56:52
Message-ID: m2r4cky1gr.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think I'd prefer a GUC that allows specifying multiple directories
>> that are searched in order to a single symlinked directory.
>
> Why?
>
> I ask because I have the opposite preference, based on the precedent of pg_xlog.

I understand Andres preference, as it would allow a management somewhat
comparable to PATH or LD_LIBRARY_PATH here.

In an effort to reach consensus, what about having both, with the GUC
being empty by default? That way you have a default per-cluster place
where to stuff binaries to be loaded, and a GUC to manage finer settings
if needs be.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2013-09-19 21:36:53 Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-09-19 20:54:25 Range types do not display in pg_stats