Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22835.1359226423@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 ("Petr Jelinek" <pjmodos@pjmodos.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3
Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Petr Jelinek" <pjmodos@pjmodos.net> writes: >> What exactly do you have in mind there? The way we load extensions, they >> can't (AFAIK) see each other's defined symbols, so you couldn't really make >> an independent extension that would call functions in plpgsql. This is not >> really open for debate, either, as changing that would risk creating symbol >> collisions between modules that never had to worry about polluting global >> namespace before. > I can call functions that are exported by plpgsql.so just fine from > different extension now, I just have to preload the plpgsql.so (via LOAD or > guc) first, so I don't see what is the problem here. [ pokes around... ] Hm, it appears that that does work on Linux, because for some reason we're specifying RTLD_GLOBAL to dlopen(). TBH that seems like a truly horrid idea that we should reconsider. Aside from the danger of unexpected symbol collisions between independent loadable modules, I seriously doubt that it works like that on every platform we support --- so I'd be very strongly against accepting any code that depends on this working. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: