Re: Dumping an Extension's Script

On 2012-12-05 13:18:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> > At the SQL level, extensions do live in a database. The only reason why
> > we currently have them on the file system is binary executables (.so,
> > .dylib, .dll). And those are not per database, not even per cluster, not
> > even per major version, they are *per server*. It's something that makes
> > me very sad, and that I want to have the chance to fix later, but that
> > won't happen in 9.3, and certainly not in that very patch…

Maybe I am missing something, but you already can separate them per
major version. You co-wrote the debian infrastructure to do so for some
debian packages, so I am not sure what you mean here.

Adding some *NON WRITABLE* per-cluster library directory doesn't seem to
be as controversion as other suggestions.

>
> I think you're wasting your time to imagine that that case will ever be
> "fixed". Allowing the server to scribble on executable files would set
> off all kinds of security alarm bells, and rightly so. If Postgres ever
> did ship with such a thing, I rather imagine that I'd be required to
> patch it out of Red Hat releases (not that SELinux wouldn't prevent
> it from happening anyway).

+1

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services