On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 4:55:13 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Raiskup writes:
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 3:25:31 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, I'm now mighty confused about this as well. PL/Ruby is pretty old
> >> too, so how come nobody noticed this before? Is its rb_iterate
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 3:25:31 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I'm now mighty confused about this as well. PL/Ruby is pretty old
>> too, so how come nobody noticed this before? Is its rb_iterate call in
>> someplace that hardly gets any use?
> ... I reproduced th
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 3:25:31 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Raiskup writes:
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:28:21 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Done. I realized that the immediate problem, rb_iterate(), was only
> >> added as of PG v10, which may explain why we hadn't heard complaints
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:28:21 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
>> Done. I realized that the immediate problem, rb_iterate(), was only
>> added as of PG v10, which may explain why we hadn't heard complaints
>> about this till now. So I've made the change only as far back as v
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:28:21 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Yeah. The long and short of this is that we're trampling on namespace
> > that reasonably belongs to Ruby --- if they had some functions named
> > "pg_something" and complained about a collision with libpq, would we
> > cha
I wrote:
> Yeah. The long and short of this is that we're trampling on namespace
> that reasonably belongs to Ruby --- if they had some functions named
> "pg_something" and complained about a collision with libpq, would we
> change? Nope. So really we should rename these.
> Barring objections I
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 3:49:46 PM CET Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Raiskup writes:
> > On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:06:41 PM CET Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to
> e.g.
> >>>
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:06:41 PM CET Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g.
'rbt_*' to avoid this clash?
>>> I don't have a huge objection to renaming
On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:06:41 PM CET Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g.
> > > 'rbt_*' to avoid this clash?
> >
> > That's not terribly appetizing, because it essentially means we
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Is it realistic we could rename red-black tree methods from 'rb_*' to e.g.
> > 'rbt_*' to avoid this clash?
>
> That's not terribly appetizing, because it essentially means we're giving
> Ruby (and potentially every other library on the planet) ve
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-11-03 14:39:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> 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 shou
On 2018-11-03 14:39:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> >> Pavel Raiskup 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 /
> > e
Andres Freund writes:
>> Pavel Raiskup 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
Hi,
On 2018-11-03 14:19:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Raiskup writes:
> > Hi, I'm curious how it worked before (seems like the function is defined
> > in both PostgreSQL and Ruby projects for quite some time) - but I recently
> > came across this situation:
> > - /bin/postgres is build-ti
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> Hi, I'm curious how it worked before (seems like the function is defined
> in both PostgreSQL and Ruby projects for quite some time) - but I recently
> came across this situation:
> - /bin/postgres is build-time linked with 'ld -E'
> - /bin/postgres dlopen()s plruby
15 matches
Mail list logo
