PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions
Hi,
I was playing a bit with trusted extensions and wondered if there is a reason that the "trusted" flag is not exposed in pg_available_extensions.
I believe that information would be quite useful so one can easily identify extensions that can be installed as "normal" user.
Regards
Daniel
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:28:45PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
I was playing a bit with trusted extensions and wondered if there is
a reason that the "trusted" flag is not exposed in pg_available_extensions.
I believe that information would be quite useful so one can easily
identify extensions that can be installed as "normal" user.
Adding the trusted flag makes sense for visibility. There is a bit
more that we could consider though? For example, what about
"relocatable" and "requires"?
--
Michael
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:28:45PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
I was playing a bit with trusted extensions and wondered if there is
a reason that the "trusted" flag is not exposed in pg_available_extensions.
I believe that information would be quite useful so one can easily
identify extensions that can be installed as "normal" user.Adding the trusted flag makes sense for visibility. There is a bit
more that we could consider though? For example, what about
"relocatable" and "requires"?
+1, and also the schema (for non relocatable extensions).
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:28:45PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
I was playing a bit with trusted extensions and wondered if there is
a reason that the "trusted" flag is not exposed in pg_available_extensions.
I believe that information would be quite useful so one can easily
identify extensions that can be installed as "normal" user.Adding the trusted flag makes sense for visibility. There is a bit
more that we could consider though? For example, what about
"relocatable" and "requires"?
+1, and also the schema (for non relocatable extensions).
+1
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:51 PM Daniel Westermann (DWE)
<daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 03:28:45PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
I was playing a bit with trusted extensions and wondered if there is
a reason that the "trusted" flag is not exposed in pg_available_extensions.
I believe that information would be quite useful so one can easily
identify extensions that can be installed as "normal" user.Adding the trusted flag makes sense for visibility. There is a bit
more that we could consider though? For example, what about
"relocatable" and "requires"?+1, and also the schema (for non relocatable extensions).
So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
fields so all the required infrastructure was already there. I just
added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
patch.
Attachments:
v1-pg_available_extensions_fields.diffapplication/octet-stream; name=v1-pg_available_extensions_fields.diffDownload+35-10
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
fields so all the required infrastructure was already there. I just
added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
patch.
The reason that pg_available_extensions has only the fields it has
is that these other values are potentially extension-version-dependent.
I do not think we can accept this patch.
(Strictly speaking, the "comment" might be version-specific too, but
there's less chance of printing a critically misleading value there.)
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 10:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
fields so all the required infrastructure was already there. I just
added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
patch.The reason that pg_available_extensions has only the fields it has
is that these other values are potentially extension-version-dependent.
I do not think we can accept this patch.
Oh, I didn't know there could be multiple control files per extension,
and I missed the "aux" reference. So indeed this patch is
unacceptable.