On 2012-12-05 13:18:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > > At the SQL level, extensions do live in a database. The only reason why > > we currently have them on the file system is binary executables (.so, > > .dylib, .dll). And those are not per database, not even per cluster, not > > even per major version, they are *per server*. It's something that makes > > me very sad, and that I want to have the chance to fix later, but that > > won't happen in 9.3, and certainly not in that very patch…
Maybe I am missing something, but you already can separate them per major version. You co-wrote the debian infrastructure to do so for some debian packages, so I am not sure what you mean here. Adding some *NON WRITABLE* per-cluster library directory doesn't seem to be as controversion as other suggestions. > > I think you're wasting your time to imagine that that case will ever be > "fixed". Allowing the server to scribble on executable files would set > off all kinds of security alarm bells, and rightly so. If Postgres ever > did ship with such a thing, I rather imagine that I'd be required to > patch it out of Red Hat releases (not that SELinux wouldn't prevent > it from happening anyway). +1 Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers