Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think that would largely be rehashing previous discussions, in which
> it's already been established that we don't see eye to eye on this
> issue. But briefly, I think that replacing shared libraries ought to
Partly yes, but as I'm feeling that we are getting closer than ever to a
consensus of a first move to be made, I want to be sure to understand
the limits of that very move so that I'm able to implement the list
consensus and nothing else.
While I don't agree with all you said in your answer, I clearly
understand that part: per-database management of modules is its own can
of worms and another discussion and patch altogether.
> Maybe these problems are solvable, but as things stand
> today I think that trying to use identically-named .so files in
> different databases at the same time should be regarded as dangerously
> unsupported. In any event, any kind of infrastructure intended to
> support such use cases is clearly a different project from simply
> allowing modules to be loaded from a different location.
Baring objections, I'll then implement a patch for allowing the core
code to load modules from a per-cluster location within $PGDATA.
The patch should also have a new initdb option much alike -X for pg_xlog
so that it's possible to relocate that new per-cluster modules directory
anywhere on the file system at initdb time.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
