On 2014-08-18 12:33:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-08-18 12:27:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Should we consider putting it into an extension rather than having > >> it in the core system? That would offer some additional protection > >> for production systems, which really shouldn't have much need for > >> this IMO. > > > I'd considered that somewhere upthread and decided that it'd require > > exposing to much internals from shmem.c/dsm.c without a corresponding > > benefit. > > Well, we could have the implementation code in those modules but not > provide any SQL-level access to it without installing an extension. > The only extra thing visible in the .h files would be a function or two.
That'd require wrapper functions in the extension afaics. Not that that is prohibitive, but a bit inconvenient. At least I don't see another way to create a sql function referring to a builtin C implementation. I don't think PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1() can reliably made work. We could have the underlying function in pg_proc, but not create the view... 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
