From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |
Date: | 2015-11-04 05:23:59 |
Message-ID: | 15462.1446614639@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I had a possibly better idea: instead of manufacturing an empty extension
>> with a direct INSERT, hack on the one extension that we know for sure
>> will be installed, namely postgres_fdw itself. So we could do, eg,
>>
>> create function foo() ...
>> alter extension postgres_fdw add function foo();
>> and then test shippability of foo() with or without having listed
>> postgres_fdw as a shippable extension.
> Yeah, I don't have a better idea than that. Could we consider shipping
> that in a different library than postgres_fdw.so, like
> postgres_fdw_test.so?
I'm envisioning the extra function(s) as just being SQL functions, so
they don't need any particular infrastructure.
> That's still strange to have a dummy object in
> postgres_fdw.so just for testing purposes.
We could drop the extra functions at the end of the test, but I don't
see the point exactly. We'd just be leaving the regression test database
with some odd contents of the extension --- there's not any wider effect
than that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | YuanyuanLiu | 2015-11-04 05:37:31 | Re: Why not to use 'pg_ctl start -D ../data' to register posgtresql windows service |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-11-04 05:19:03 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |