Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> Hm. That issue doesn't particularly concern me. Having all .so's
>> available in the installation seems like a pretty basic
>> requirement. Security labels are by far not the only things that'll fail
>> without an extension's .so present, no?
> It's certainly an issue that postgis users are familiar with.
Really? What aspect of postgis requires mucking with
shared_preload_libraries?
If you ask me, shared_preload_libraries was only ever meant as a
performance optimization. If user-visible DDL behavior depends on a
library being preloaded that way, that feature is broken. There
are some cases where we probably don't care enough to provide a
proper solution, but I'm not sure why we would think that security
labels fall in the don't-really-give-a-damn-if-it-works class.
regards, tom lane