On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 10:43:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:57 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I agree that _PG_fini functions as they stand are worthless. >>> What I'm not getting is why we should care enough about that >>> to break just about everybody's extension. Even if unloading >>> extensions were feasible, who would bother? > >> Well, if we think that, then we ought to remove the NOT_USED code and >> all the random _PG_fini() stuff that's still floating around. > > I think that's exactly what we should do, if it bugs you that stuff > is just sitting there. I see no prospect that we'll ever make it > work, because the question of unhooking from hooks is just the tip > of the iceberg. As an example, what should happen with any custom > GUCs the module has defined? Dropping their values might not be > very nice, but if we leave them around then the next LOAD (if any) > will see a conflict. Another fun question is whether it's ever > safe to unload a module that was preloaded by the postmaster. > > In short, this seems like a can of very wriggly worms, with not > a lot of benefit that would ensue from opening it.
+1, I'll put together a new patch set. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
