Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
Date: 2024-06-24 16:11:42
Message-ID: ZnmavuKNNJLDRq7I@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:52:26PM -0400, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I realize this probably isn´t going to happen for 17, given the freeze,
> but I would very much welcome feedback and pointers to address concerns
> about providing a second directory for extensions and DSOs. Quite a few
> people have talked about the need for this in the Extension Mini
> Summits[1], so I´m sure I could get some collaborators to make
> improvements or look at a different approach.

At first glance, the general idea seems reasonable to me. I'm wondering
whether there is a requirement for this directory to be prepended or if it
could be appended to the end. That way, the existing ones would take
priority, which might be desirable from a security standpoint.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-06-24 16:42:55 Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-06-24 16:08:59 Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes