Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 22.06.22 15:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Doesn't this amount to a fundamental ABI break for extensions?
>> Yesterday they had to ship foo.so, today they have to ship foo.dylib.

> Extensions generally only load the module files using the extension-free
> base name. And if they do specify the extension, they should use the
> provided DLSUFFIX variable and not hardcode it. So I don't see how this
> would be a problem.

Hm. Since we force people to recompile extensions for new major versions
anyway, maybe it'd be all right. I'm sure there is *somebody* out there
who will have to adjust their build scripts, but it does seem like it
shouldn't be much worse than other routine API changes.

[ thinks for a bit... ] Might be worth double-checking that pg_upgrade
doesn't get confused in a cross-version upgrade. A quick grep doesn't
find that it refers to DLSUFFIX anywhere, but it definitely does pay
attention to extensions' shared library names.

regards, tom lane