From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:45:20 -0400
Message-ID: <3336874.1655905520@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bcc45f78-e3c3-8fb3-7c42-5371b48b5266@enterprisedb.com>
References: <bcc45f78-e3c3-8fb3-7c42-5371b48b5266@enterprisedb.com>
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> macOS has traditionally used extension .dylib for shared libraries (used
> at build time) and .so for dynamically loaded modules (used by
> dlopen()). This complicates the build system a bit. Also, Meson uses
> .dylib for both, so it would be worth unifying this in order to be able
> to get equal build output.
> There doesn't appear to be any reason to use any particular extension
> for dlopened modules, since dlopen() will accept anything and PostgreSQL
> is well-factored to be able to deal with any extension. Other software
> packages that I have handy appear to be about 50/50 split on which
> extension they use for their plugins. So it seems possible to change
> this safely.
Doesn't this amount to a fundamental ABI break for extensions?
Yesterday they had to ship foo.so, today they have to ship foo.dylib.
I'm not against the idea if we can avoid widespread extension
breakage, but that part seems like a problem.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: Unify DLSUFFIX on Darwin
In-Reply-To: <3336874.1655905520@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox