On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Robert Haas <
robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought that in general if user has the API to register the custom path
> > methods, it should have some way to unregister them and also user might
> > need to register some different custom path methods after unregistering
> > the previous one's. I think we should see what Robert or others have to
> > say about this point before trying to provide such an API.
>
> I wouldn't bother. As KaiGai says, if you want to shut the
> functionality off, the provider itself can provide a GUC. Also, we
> really have made no effort to ensure that loadable modules can be
> safely unloaded, or hooked functions safely-unhooked.
> ExecutorRun_hook is a good example. Typical of hook installation is
> this:
>
> prev_ExecutorRun = ExecutorRun_hook;
> ExecutorRun_hook = pgss_ExecutorRun;
>
In this case, Extension takes care of register and unregister for
hook. In _PG_init(), it register the hook and _PG_fini() it
unregisters the same. So if for custom scan core pg is
providing API to register the methods, shouldn't it provide an
API to unregister the same?
