Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin

2022-07-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 24.06.22 16:13, Tom Lane wrote: [ thinks for a bit... ] Might be worth double-checking that pg_upgrade doesn't get confused in a cross-version upgrade. A quick grep doesn't find that it refers to DLSUFFIX anywhere, but it definitely does pay attention to extensions' shared library names. p

Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin

2022-06-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 2022-06-24 Fr 10:13, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 22.06.22 15:45, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Doesn't this amount to a fundamental ABI break for extensions? >>> Yesterday they had to ship foo.so, today they have to ship foo.dylib. >> Extensions generally only load the module files

Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin

2022-06-24 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 22.06.22 15:45, Tom Lane wrote: >> Doesn't this amount to a fundamental ABI break for extensions? >> Yesterday they had to ship foo.so, today they have to ship foo.dylib. > Extensions generally only load the module files using the extension-free > base name. And if

Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin

2022-06-24 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 22.06.22 15:45, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut writes: macOS has traditionally used extension .dylib for shared libraries (used at build time) and .so for dynamically loaded modules (used by dlopen()). This complicates the build system a bit. Also, Meson uses .dylib for both, so it would

Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin

2022-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > macOS has traditionally used extension .dylib for shared libraries (used > at build time) and .so for dynamically loaded modules (used by > dlopen()). This complicates the build system a bit. Also, Meson uses > .dylib for both, so it would be worth unifying this in