Re: Extensions vs. shared procedural language handler functions

On 05/03/11 01:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> So while hacking away at the PLs-as-extension changes I ran across an
> unforeseen complication. plperl and plpython use the same C function
> entry points for both their trusted and untrusted variants. This is
> problematic for making them into extensions, since we need the two
> language variants to be different extensions (else you could not install
> just one of them) and the extensions can't both own the same handler
> function.

ITYM plperl only, because plpython does not have a trusted variant. But
there might be another obstacle here: plpython comes in two variants:
plpython2u and plpython3u, and which one is built depends on the compile
time configuration. Not sure how that plays with extensions...

Cheers,
Jan