On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:16:05AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > > On 12/9/14 4:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 06:10:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> (For pg_upgrade you also need to do something about pg_upgrade_support, > >>> which is good because that is one very ugly crock.) > > >> FYI, pg_upgrade_support was segregated from pg_upgrade only because we > >> wanted separate binary and shared object build/install targets. > > > I think the actual reason is that the makefile structure won't let you > > have them both in the same directory. I don't see why you would need > > separate install targets. > > > How about we move these support functions into the backend? It's not > > like we don't already have other pg_upgrade hooks baked in all over the > > place. > > I don't particularly object to having the C code built into the backend; > there's not that much of it, and if we could static-ize some of the global > variables that are involved presently, it'd be a Good Thing IMO. However, > the current arrangement makes sure that the function are not accessible > except during pg_upgrade, and that seems like a Good Thing as well. So > I think pg_upgrade should continue to have SQL scripts that create and > delete the SQL function definitions for these.
Oh, hmmm, would pg_upgrade_support still be a separate shared object file, or would we just link to functions that already exist in the backend binary, i.e. it is just the SQL-callabiity you want pg_upgrade to do? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers