On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > perhaps for v16 or some future release we can think about redoing a
> > bunch of hooks this way. There would be some migration pain for
> > extension authors for sure, but then we might get to a point where
> > extensions can be cleanly unloaded in at least some circumstances,
> > instead of continuing to write silly _PG_fini() functions that
> > couldn't possibly ever work.
>
> I agree that _PG_fini functions as they stand are worthless.
> What I'm not getting is why we should care enough about that
> to break just about everybody's extension. Even if unloading
> extensions were feasible, who would bother?
Well, if we think that, then we ought to remove the NOT_USED code and
all the random _PG_fini() stuff that's still floating around.
I don't actually have a clear answer to whether it's a useful thing to
be able to unload modules. If the module is just providing a bunch of
SQL-callable functions, it probably isn't. If it's modifying the
behavior of your session, it might be. Now, it could also have an
"off" switch in the form of a GUC, and probably should - but you'd
probably save at least a few cycles by detaching from the hooks rather
than just still getting called and doing nothing, and maybe that's
worth something. Whether it's worth enough to justify making changes
that will affect extensions, I'm not sure.
IOW, I don't really know what we ought to do here, but I think that
maintaining a vestigial system that has never worked and can never
work is not it.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com