Re: late binding of shared libs for C functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: late binding of shared libs for C functions
Date: 2018-06-14 13:00:37
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa+Cvh0_x0tSaP7T45u__wFUFbn6AjfA_ANZxtAPtDPog@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Andrew Dunstan
<andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> UNBOUNDED would be terrible. It does not mean the same thing as UNBOUND.
>
> Perhaps something like NO CHECK would meet the case, i.e. we're not checking
> the link at function creation time.
>
> I haven't thought through the other implications yet.

It seems like it might be better to control this through a GUC than
dedicated syntax, because you probably want it for purposes of
restoring an otherwise-unrestorable dump, and you want to make the
decision at restore time, not dump time. If it's a GUC, that's a lot
easier than if you have to edit the dump.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-06-14 13:00:59 Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-06-14 12:59:22 Re: Shared access methods?