From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions |
Date: | 2025-02-04 20:34:36 |
Message-ID: | d0885e1f-3c0b-425f-a50c-2ba0fca1ce8a@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-02-03 Mo 3:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>> prefix= should only be set when running the "install" target, not when building (make all).
> I see. I confirm that works. Still, don’t all the other parameters work when passed to any/all targets? Should this one have an extension-specific name?
IDK, I don't understand what you think you're saying when you specify
--prefix to an extension build (as opposed to an install).
>
>>> So I suspect the issue is that, when looking for SQL files, the patch needs to use the directory parameter[4] when it’s set --- and it can be an absolute path! Honestly I think there’s a case to be made for eliminating that parameter.
>> Possibly. I didn't know why extensions would use that parameter, before you showed an example.
> ISTM it does more harm than good. The location of extension files should be highly predictable. I think the search path functionality mitigates the need for this parameter, and it should be dropped.
I agree that we should either drop the "directory" directive or fix this
patch so it doesn't break it. I have never used the directive, not sure
I was even aware of its existence, so I have no objection to dropping it.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-02-04 20:35:37 | Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2025-02-04 20:34:23 | Re: should we have a fast-path planning for OLTP starjoins? |