Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin

On 2022-06-24 Fr 10:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On 22.06.22 15:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Doesn't this amount to a fundamental ABI break for extensions?
>>> Yesterday they had to ship foo.so, today they have to ship foo.dylib.
>> Extensions generally only load the module files using the extension-free
>> base name. And if they do specify the extension, they should use the
>> provided DLSUFFIX variable and not hardcode it. So I don't see how this
>> would be a problem.
> Hm. Since we force people to recompile extensions for new major versions
> anyway, maybe it'd be all right. I'm sure there is *somebody* out there
> who will have to adjust their build scripts, but it does seem like it
> shouldn't be much worse than other routine API changes.
>
> [ thinks for a bit... ] Might be worth double-checking that pg_upgrade
> doesn't get confused in a cross-version upgrade. A quick grep doesn't
> find that it refers to DLSUFFIX anywhere, but it definitely does pay
> attention to extensions' shared library names.
>
>

The buildfarm client uses `make show_dl_suffix` to determine filenames
to look for when seeing if an installation is complete. It looks like
that will continue to work.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com