Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 09:39:09 -0300
Message-Id: <DCP4KLQCQDCG.2QKVXFFWBX2UF@gmail.com>
From: "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
To: "Pierrick" <pierrick.chovelon@dalibo.com>,
 <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Adding clarification on extension_control_path when extension
 is present in multiple folders
References: <211e8d61-7fea-4eb2-892a-c3c1f32e3a89@dalibo.com>
In-Reply-To: <211e8d61-7fea-4eb2-892a-c3c1f32e3a89@dalibo.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/DCP4KLQCQDCG.2QKVXFFWBX2UF%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri Sep 5, 2025 at 10:53 AM -03, Pierrick wrote:
> When playing with the new GUC extension_control_path, I found that the=20
> paths are evaluated one by one
> (like search_path)and if an extension is present in multiple paths, only=
=20
> the on in the first path
> will be considered.I think this is totally fine, but I'd like to adda=20
> documentation patch to explain
> this (attached file).
>
> What do you think ?
>

Hi, thanks for working on this!

Just to mention that I have this on my plate, I'm just waiting for a
conclusion on discussion at [1] so that I can make a proper review here.

Thanks!

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8f5a0517-1cb8-4085-ae89-77e7454e2=
7ba@dalibo.com

--
Matheus Alcantara