Re: pg_upgrade libraries check

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade libraries check
Date: 2012-05-29 21:35:18
Message-ID: 29612.1338327318@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> The bottom line is that already needed function shared objects checking,
> so we just wrapped languages into that as well.

Well, that'd be fine if it actually *worked*, but as per this
discussion, it doesn't work; you have to kluge around the fact that
the shared library name changed. I'm suggesting that pg_upgrade needs
to be revised to treat this stuff at a higher level. Yeah, you need to
look at shared library names for bare C functions, but we should be
getting away from that wherever there is a higher-level construct such
as an extension or PL.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-05-29 21:48:00 Re: pg_upgrade libraries check
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-05-29 21:30:26 Re: Performance patch for Win32