From: Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@redhat.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org>
Subject: Re: plruby: rb_iterate symbol clash with libruby.so
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 13:43:03 +0100
Message-ID: <1772202.Bn4MKCBuZf@nb.usersys.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYbguBrde0XrXpdHkFZcB3Bjc+oeR2T8Xjb1k+rzJCrPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4738198.8KVIIDhgEB@nb.usersys.redhat.com>
 <20461.1541269186@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYbguBrde0XrXpdHkFZcB3Bjc+oeR2T8Xjb1k+rzJCrPQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:06:41 PM CET Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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) veto power over
> > our function namespace.  That does not scale, especially not when the
> > feedback loop has a time constant measured in years :-(
> >
> > I don't have a huge objection to renaming the rbtree functions, other
> > than the precedent it sets ...
> 
> Maybe prefixing with pg_ would better than rb_ to rbt_.  That's our
> semi-standard namespace prefix, I think.  Of course nothing keeps
> somebody else from using it, too, but we can hope that they won't.
> It's certainly not very surprising that Ruby has symbols starting with
> rb_...

I now realized that there's rb_block_call() alternative for rb_iterate()
Ruby call -- which fortunately doesn't collide with PostgreSQL internals.

It means that for sufficiently new Ruby there exists some solution (not
that something similar can not re-appear elsewhere).

Pavel