On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Kevin Grittner
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think that technically this patch can be polished well enough to
>> commit in the time we have available, but the question of whether
>> it's the right design is harder, and I don't want that to be my
>> call alone.
> I gather from previous posts that the intent isn't to allow different
> packages from different authors to provide a common and compatible
> feature; but what happens in the current design if someone
> accidentally or maliciously produces an extension which provides the
> same feature name as another extension?
> Would we need some registry?
One thing I was thinking about was whether we should restrict feature
names to be of some specific form, like extension_name:feature_name.
That would address this issue, and would also keep people from
thinking of this as an alternatives mechanism, as I did.
Of course, that doesn't prevent someone from publishing an ip4r module
that erases your hard disk, but there's nothing much we can do about
that problem from within core PostgreSQL.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2012-03-29 13:01:45|
|Subject: Re: Command Triggers patch v18|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2012-03-29 12:46:30|
|Subject: Re: Finer Extension dependencies|