Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date
Msg-id 20582.1297619765@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Responses Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> I'm hesitant to have any substitutions that happen unconditionally,
>> but we could add a control parameter like
>> module_pathname = '$libdir/hstore'
>> and then things would be pretty clean.

> Ok.  Maybe the simpler would be to make the current control variable a
> static backend variable so that EXT_CONTROL(module_pathname) is easy to
> find out from anywhere (I see you got rid of some direct usage of static
> variables with recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension() already).

I think it's better to keep it working as a textual substitution.
That poses the least risk of breaking scripts that work today ---
who's to say that somebody might not be relying on the substitution
happening someplace else than CREATE FUNCTION's shlib string?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Steve Singer
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/python custom exceptions for SPI
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage