Re: glob support in extension_control_path/dynamic_library_path?

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: glob support in extension_control_path/dynamic_library_path?
Date: 2026-06-25 14:49:21
Message-ID: 7DE81D76-250E-4E61-818F-A47201EFDA87@justatheory.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jun 25, 2026, at 01:15, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Just a thought, but another approach would be to allow symlinks to
> extension installation directories either in the existing extension
> file search directories or in a separate directory added to the search
> path. That would likely require PostgreSQL to recognize a somewhat
> different extension file layout than it currently assumes, though.

I don’t follow the argument about symlinks, but suspect they wouldn’t work in environments like CNPG with read-only file systems.

But reorganizing where files live was exactly what I proposed in the Packaging & Lookup RFC[0]. It’s a *lot* more involved of a change, though, and has all sorts of compatibility challenges to work out.

[0]: https://justatheory.com/2024/11/rfc-extension-packaging-lookup/#solution

Best,

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2026-06-25 15:05:01 Re: In core use of RegisterXactCallback() and RegisterSubXactCallback()
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2026-06-25 14:47:01 Re: glob support in extension_control_path/dynamic_library_path?