Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix
Date
Msg-id 1842069.1715808293@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> What portability issues do you forsee? We already look up the same symbol in
> all the shared libraries ("Pg_magic_func"), so we know that we can deal with
> duplicate function names. Are you thinking that somehow we'd end up with
> symbol interposition or something?

No, it's the dependence on the physical library file name that's
bothering me.  Maybe that won't be an issue, but I foresee requests
like "would you please case-fold it" or "the extension-trimming rule
isn't quite right", etc.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop?