On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 02:20:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> That's a reasonable point. I'll go ahead an explore some options for
>> something along those lines. A couple of questions immediately come to
>> mind. For example, should this configuration option just cause these
>> functions to ERROR, or should it compile them out?
>
> Letting them be present but throw error is likely to be far less
> painful than the other way, because then you don't need a separate
> set of SQL-visible object definitions. You could, in fact, imagine
> jacking up an existing database and driving a set of locked-down
> binaries under it --- or vice versa. If there have to be different
> versions of the extension SQL files for the two cases then everything
> gets way hairier, both for developers and users.
Agreed. I'll do it that way.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
