Re: Configurable location for extension .control files

10.06.2013, 17:51, Dimitri Fontaine kirjoitti:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> In any case, no packager is going to ship an insecure-by-default
>>> configuration, which is what Dimitri seems to be fantasizing would
>>> happen.  It would have to be local option to relax the permissions
>>> on the directory, no matter where it is.
>>
>> *I* don't want that at all. All I'd like to have is a postgresql.conf
>>  option specifying additional locations.
>
> Same from me. I think I would even take non-plural location.

Here's a patch to allow overriding extension installation directory.
The patch allows superusers to change it at runtime, but we could also
restrict it to postgresql.conf if needed.  I don't really see a point in
restricting it (or not implementing the option at all) as the superuser
can already load custom C code and sql from anywhere in the filesystem;
not having configurable extension directory just makes it harder to test
extensions and to create private clusters of PG data in a custom
location without using custom binaries.

I don't think anyone should be packaging and shipping PG with
extension_directory set, but we really should allow it for superusers
and postgresql.conf so people can test extensions without hacks like
this: https://github.com/ohmu/pgmemcache/blob/master/localtests.sh#L23

/ Oskari