Re: Procedural language permissions and consequences
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Procedural language permissions and consequences |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0201161118100.730-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Procedural language permissions and consequences (Doug McNaught <doug@wireboard.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Doug McNaught writes: > Just that I imagine it's quite useful, while hacking on a procedural > language, to be able to restart the postmaster and reload the library, > rather than relinking and reinstalling the postmaster binary. So > keeping the option for PLs in shared libraries is probably a good > idea, though having the "standard" ones compiled in makes some sense. PLs work just like user-defined C functions, so the possibility to load your own is not going anywhere. > Wouldn't a postmaster statically linked with libperl.a and libpyhon.a > be pretty big? Would that cause problems? I wouldn't think so. First, if you link statically you only get the code you actually use (more or less). Second, even if you get most of it, code is only loaded into memory if you actually use it. Third, if you don't like it you should provide the appropriate shared libraries and the linker should use them automatically. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: