From: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Weirdness using Executor Hooks |
Date: | 2015-06-19 00:07:51 |
Message-ID: | CANcm6wacpL6W+dR6_MsN3y7qKdbUrQRLA6b_rDAGCgtt2EXxow@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> What we were expecting I guess is that such functions would be declared
> to reference the library underneath $libdir/plugins, not that you'd use
> a symlink.
According to pg_proc.probin, all 32 of my C language functions point
to $libdir/my_extension_lib, which makes sense because as part of the
extension .sql I declare them as LANGUAGE c AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', and
MODULE_PATHNAME gets substituted by make.
So are you saying that we should instead declare them AS
'$libdir/plugins/my_extension_lib' so that it matches what's happening
in local_preload_libraries? And is it safe to directly update
pg_proc.probin (and ya know, terminate all existing backends)?
Thanks so much for your time!
eric
ps, I think if we just changed our deploy process to terminate
existing backends this would just disappear, yeah?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-06-19 00:17:30 | Re: dblink: add polymorphic functions - review |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-06-18 23:19:04 | Re: Inheritance planner CPU and memory usage change since 9.3.2 |