Re: extension_control_path - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Dimitri Fontaine |
---|---|
Subject | Re: extension_control_path |
Date | |
Msg-id | m27g8gke9z.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: extension_control_path (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Responses |
Re: extension_control_path
Re: extension_control_path Re: extension_control_path |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > I'm a bit confused here- above you '+1'd packagers/sysadmins, but then > here you are saying that hackers will be setting it? Also, it strikes Well I was then talking about how it works today, as in PostgreSQL 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3, and most certainly 9.4 as we're not trying to change anything on that front. > me as a terrible idea to ship absolute object file names (which I assume > you mean to include path, given you say 'absolute') unless you're an I agree, that's why my current design also needs cooperation on the backend side of things, to implement what you're calling here relocation of the files. Now that I read your comments, we might be able to implement something really simple and have something in core… Please see attached patch, tested and documented. doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml | 7 ++++++ src/backend/commands/extension.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > Presumably, that's what you'd want to set both the control path and the > dynamic extension path to- a directory of control files and a directory > of .so's, or perhaps one combined directory of both, for the simplest > setup. If you're working with a directory-per-package, then wouldn't > you want to have everything for that package in that package's directory > and then only have to add all those directories to one place in > postgresql.conf? That's a fair-enough observation, that targets a use case where you're using the feature without the extra software. I also note that it could simplify said software a little bit. What about allowing a control file like this: # hstore extension comment = 'data type for storing sets of (key, value) pairs' default_version = '1.3' directory = 'local/hstore-new' module_pathname = '$directory/hstore' relocatable = true The current way directory is parsed, relative pathnames are allowed and will be resolved in SHAREDIR, which is where we find the extension/ main directory, where currently live extension control files. With such a feature, we would allow module_pathname to reuse the same location as where we're going to find auxilliary control files and scripts. > My questions about this are mostly covered above, but I did want to get > clarification- is this going to be on a per-system basis, as in, when > the package is installed through your tool, it's going to go figure out > where the package got installed to and rewrite the control file? Seems > like a lot of work if you're going to have to add that directory to the > postgresql.conf path for the control file anyway to then *also* have to > hack up the control file itself. Given module_pathname = '$directory/xxx' the extension is now fully relocatable and the tool doesn't need to put in any other effort than hacking the control file *at build time*. See the attached patch that implements the idea. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: