Re: moving from contrib to bin

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: moving from contrib to bin
Date: 2014-12-13 01:43:43
Message-ID: 548B99CF.8030200@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/12/14 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't particularly object to having the C code built into the backend;
> there's not that much of it, and if we could static-ize some of the global
> variables that are involved presently, it'd be a Good Thing IMO. However,
> the current arrangement makes sure that the function are not accessible
> except during pg_upgrade, and that seems like a Good Thing as well. So
> I think pg_upgrade should continue to have SQL scripts that create and
> delete the SQL function definitions for these.

That won't actually work very easily. LANGUAGE internal functions need
to be in fmgr_builtins, and the only way to get them there is by listing
them in pg_proc.h. (We could drop the functions in initdb, but seems
kind of silly.)

The functions do already check themselves that they are called in binary
upgrade mode, so exposing them in pg_proc doesn't seem risky.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2014-12-13 01:55:21 Re: moving from contrib to bin
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-12-13 01:16:03 Re: operator does not exist: character varying[] <> character[]