From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: late binding of shared libs for C functions |
Date: | 2018-06-12 16:11:52 |
Message-ID: | 20180612161152.ybxhf266gxqvmmdi@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-06-12 15:05:16 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> >> The real question is why check_function_bodies doesn't cover this;
> >> there's a comment in fmgr_c_validator that this is deliberate, but it's
> >> rather unclear what the advantage is supposed to be:
>
> Tom> Error detection, ie did you spell the C symbol name correctly.
>
> Right, but surely restoring a dump is not the place to be doing that
> error check?
I'm not convinced that that's true. Checking that the target system has
the right shared library [version] installed isn't crazy, and you can't
do it at dump time.
If I wanted to do something about it - which I don't really - I'd argue
that check_function_bodies should become an enum or such.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-12 16:25:58 | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |
Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2018-06-12 16:08:38 | Re: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump |