Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
Date
Msg-id CAGECzQSkhB_GOs2EmvghPrTcYmC8TOkkDDS=Ws4Vw-=Q4T+KBw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 19:33, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2024, at 5:32 PM, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
>
> > Still, for the sake of completeness it might make sense to support
> > this whole list in extension_destdir. (assuming it's easy to do)
>
> It should be with the current patch, which just uses a prefix to paths in `pg_config`.

Ah alright, I think it confused me because I never saw bindir being
used. But as it turns out the current backend code never uses bindir.
So that makes sense. I guess to actually use the binaries from the
extension_destdir/$BINDIR the operator needs to set PATH accordingly,
or the extension needs to be changed to support extension_destdir.

It might be nice to add a helper function to find binaries in BINDIR,
now that the resolution logic is more complex. Even if postgres itself
doesn't use it. That would make it easier for extensions to be
modified to support extension_distdir. Something like
find_bindir_executable(char *name)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
Next
From:
Date:
Subject: RE: Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan reports per-worker stats in EXPLAIN ANALYZE