Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> Hm. That issue doesn't particularly concern me. Having all .so's >> available in the installation seems like a pretty basic >> requirement. Security labels are by far not the only things that'll fail >> without an extension's .so present, no?
> It's certainly an issue that postgis users are familiar with. Really? What aspect of postgis requires mucking with shared_preload_libraries? If you ask me, shared_preload_libraries was only ever meant as a performance optimization. If user-visible DDL behavior depends on a library being preloaded that way, that feature is broken. There are some cases where we probably don't care enough to provide a proper solution, but I'm not sure why we would think that security labels fall in the don't-really-give-a-damn-if-it-works class. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers