Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> writes:
>>> Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g.
>>> 'rbt_*' to avoid this clash?
> ISTM this specific case we could solve the issue by opening plruby.so /
> extension sos with RTLD_DEEPBIND. That doesn't work if ruby extensions
> that are loaded later use rb_iterate, but should work for the case above.
Doesn't work on non-glibc platforms, though.
> On 2018-11-03 14:19:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's not terribly appetizing, because it essentially means we're giving
>> Ruby (and potentially every other library on the planet) veto power over
>> our function namespace. That does not scale, especially not when the
>> feedback loop has a time constant measured in years :-(
>> I don't have a huge objection to renaming the rbtree functions, other
>> than the precedent it sets ...
> I don't mind the precedent that much, but isn't that also not unlikely
> to break other extensions that use those functions?
I rather doubt there are any. Also, if there are, the RTLD_DEEPBIND
solution would break them too, no?
regards, tom lane
