From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: plruby: rb_iterate symbol clash with libruby.so |
Date: | 2018-11-03 18:39:45 |
Message-ID: | 21251.1541270385@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
>>> Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g.
>>> 'rbt_*' to avoid this clash?
> ISTM this specific case we could solve the issue by opening plruby.so /
> extension sos with RTLD_DEEPBIND. That doesn't work if ruby extensions
> that are loaded later use rb_iterate, but should work for the case above.
Doesn't work on non-glibc platforms, though.
> On 2018-11-03 14:19:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's not terribly appetizing, because it essentially means we're giving
>> Ruby (and potentially every other library on the planet) veto power over
>> our function namespace. That does not scale, especially not when the
>> feedback loop has a time constant measured in years :-(
>> I don't have a huge objection to renaming the rbtree functions, other
>> than the precedent it sets ...
> I don't mind the precedent that much, but isn't that also not unlikely
> to break other extensions that use those functions?
I rather doubt there are any. Also, if there are, the RTLD_DEEPBIND
solution would break them too, no?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-03 18:42:59 | Re: plruby: rb_iterate symbol clash with libruby.so |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-03 18:30:40 | Re: plruby: rb_iterate symbol clash with libruby.so |