On 09/09/2025 16:18, Matheus Alcantara wrote:
On Tue Sep 9, 2025 at 4:53 AM -03, Pierrick wrote:
On 08/09/2025 17:35, Tom Lane wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, September 8, 2025, Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
wrote:
On this step it will search the .control
file on paths at extension_control_path in order and it will use the
first one that it finds and based on the .control file found it will
install the extension using the version specified on the command.
Then pg_available_extensions seems broken - it lists extensions as
available that are not accessible to the user due to this policy. Maybe we
need to add something indicating that certain rows are hidden behind the
present path setting which would need to be changed if one wishes to
install them. Also seems like the extension location should be part of the
output too.
I agree. If an extension is the list, I expect to be able to install it.
I definitely agree that pg_available_extensions is wrong but I think
that a fix for this should be to don't allow extensions with the same
name on different paths.
The current behavior is to stop the searching when the first extension
name matches with the CREATE EXTENSION input, this works in the same way
when for example we have the same command on multiple paths on PATH.
If so, then only one line should be printed in pg_available_extensions.
This could be the fix :).
Changing the behavior to search on all paths to find the extension that
matches the name and possibly the version seems complicated and
confusing to me TBH.
To have multiple versions of the same extension, the .sql files for all
versions should be put on the same path all together as already is
today. Enabling adding the same extension on multiple paths doesn't seem
right to me IMHO.
Any thoughts? I'm missing something here?
Well, I don't really have a strong argument, but adding this new setting allows
people to work with extensions differently. Having different folders for different
versions of the same extension might be a new approach.
Adding extension location is a good idea.
This looks like a good idea to me too.
Thanks for all the comments!
You are welcome :)
--
Matheus Alcantara
