| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Where to load modules from? |
| Date: | 2013-09-19 20:56:52 |
| Message-ID: | m2r4cky1gr.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think I'd prefer a GUC that allows specifying multiple directories
>> that are searched in order to a single symlinked directory.
>
> Why?
>
> I ask because I have the opposite preference, based on the precedent of pg_xlog.
I understand Andres preference, as it would allow a management somewhat
comparable to PATH or LD_LIBRARY_PATH here.
In an effort to reach consensus, what about having both, with the GUC
being empty by default? That way you have a default per-cluster place
where to stuff binaries to be loaded, and a GUC to manage finer settings
if needs be.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-09-19 21:36:53 | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-09-19 20:54:25 | Range types do not display in pg_stats |