On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 10:43:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I agree that _PG_fini functions as they stand are worthless.
>>> What I'm not getting is why we should care enough about that
>>> to break just about everybody's extension. Even if unloading
>>> extensions were feasible, who would bother?
>
>> Well, if we think that, then we ought to remove the NOT_USED code and
>> all the random _PG_fini() stuff that's still floating around.
>
> I think that's exactly what we should do, if it bugs you that stuff
> is just sitting there. I see no prospect that we'll ever make it
> work, because the question of unhooking from hooks is just the tip
> of the iceberg. As an example, what should happen with any custom
> GUCs the module has defined? Dropping their values might not be
> very nice, but if we leave them around then the next LOAD (if any)
> will see a conflict. Another fun question is whether it's ever
> safe to unload a module that was preloaded by the postmaster.
>
> In short, this seems like a can of very wriggly worms, with not
> a lot of benefit that would ensue from opening it.
+1, I'll put together a new patch set.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
