From: | "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Include extension path on pg_available_extensions |
Date: | 2025-09-16 00:18:25 |
Message-ID: | DCTSKQAVOXIG.3A05JM1YORARK@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all,
On [1] it was mentioned that it could be a good idea to include the
extension location when listening the available extensions on
pg_available_extensions to make it clear to the user the location of an
extension that Postgres is seeing based on the extension_control_path
GUC.
The attached patch implements this idea. Extensions installed on $system
path will not show the actual value of the $system macro and it will
show the macro itself, for example:
postgres=# show extension_control_path;
extension_control_path
---------------------------------------------------
/usr/local/my/extensions/share/postgresql:$system
(1 row)
postgres=# select * from pg_available_extensions;
name | default_version | installed_version | comment | location
---------+-----------------+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
envvar | 1.0.0 | | Get the value of a server environment variable | /usr/local/my/extensions/share/postgresql/extension
amcheck | 1.5 | | functions for verifying relation integrity | $system
bloom | 1.0 | | bloom access method - signature file based index | $system
I'm not sure if this should be included on 18 release since this is not
a bug fix but an improvement on the extension system by itself.
Any opinions on this?
--
Matheus Alcantara
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-Add-path-of-extension-on-pg_available_extensions.patch | text/plain | 13.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-16 00:31:59 | Re: --with-llvm on 32-bit platforms? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-16 00:04:55 | Re: --with-llvm on 32-bit platforms? |