Thread
-
idea for 'module' support
Mark Hollomon <mhh@mindspring.com> — 1999-06-21T01:39:30Z
As I've been playing with the PL/Perl implementation, it has dawned on me a fairly simple, but nice feature could be added. I would like to add the following command: LOAD PACKAGE 'package-name'; Like the current 'LOAD' it would treat 'package-name' as shared library. But it would also call an intialization function in the library (package_init maybe?). For instance, a user may type: LOAD PACKAGE 'plperl'; This would not only load the shared library "plperl.so", but call the function "package_init" which could the use the SPI facilities to properly setup the system tables for the new language. New types could be packaged the same way. This would give a very modular way to add 'packages' of functionality. What do you think? -- Mark Hollomon mhh@mindspring.com
-
Re: [HACKERS] idea for 'module' support
Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net> — 1999-06-21T01:58:56Z
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Mark Hollomon wrote: > For instance, a user may type: > > LOAD PACKAGE 'plperl'; > > This would not only load the shared library "plperl.so", but call > the function "package_init" which could the use the SPI facilities > to properly setup the system tables for the new language. > > New types could be packaged the same way. > > This would give a very modular way to add 'packages' of functionality. > > What do you think? Lots of people do this, but you might want to take a look at how we do this in Dents, just because it's moderately well documented. I did the initial version inspired by how GTK+ loads new themes, but the basic idea is the same everywhere: dlopen() an object, resolve symbols in it, use those symbols to populate a struct filled with function pointers and whatnot. You can find docs on how to write Dents modules at: http://www.dents.org/modules/modules.html For how we actually do it, look in the source code under "src/*module*". I personally think that this is a neat idea in general and might be very nifty for Postgres. -- Todd Graham Lewis Postmaster, MindSpring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.net (800) 719-4664, x22804 "There is no spoon." -
Re: [HACKERS] idea for 'module' support
Daniel Lundin <daniel@umc.se> — 1999-06-21T09:44:06Z
Hi Mark, This is truly a very nice idea, since it would from an application developers perspective simplify the process of getting users to for instance update the inner works of a postgresql driven application. It would be great to also in a package be able to include SQL scripts, so one could do "patches" for database applications that are easily installed by end-users/administrators. For instance, updating stored procedures, classes and external .so libs could be done with a simple LOAD PACKAGE 'package-name' facility. I'm uncertain if this really fits in the pgsql db itself, it might be better to have it outside of the main package, as a utility (suite) like pg_package-install/update/list. Some more thoughts on what would fit nicely in the package-idea: - Scriptability. A package should be a PostgreSQL "SQL" script, runable from psql. - Digitally signed (encrypted?) packages - Version control - External transport (ftp, httpd from update server) I think the XEmacs 21.x package handling might be a good model, which according to me works very well even for relatively newbie users. Just some thoughts, might need refining and discussion, but the main idea is to have an increased modularity, adding/updating/managing separate modules easily. Be well, /Daniel Mark Hollomon writes: > I would like to add the following command: > > LOAD PACKAGE 'package-name'; ... > LOAD PACKAGE 'plperl'; > > This would not only load the shared library "plperl.so", but call > the function "package_init" which could the use the SPI facilities > to properly setup the system tables for the new language. > New types could be packaged the same way. > This would give a very modular way to add 'packages' of functionality. -- _______________________________________________________________ /\__ Daniel Lundin - MediaCenter, UNIX and BeOS Developer \/ http://www.umc.se/~daniel/
-
Re: [HACKERS] idea for 'module' support
Jan Wieck <wieck@debis.com> — 1999-06-21T16:21:43Z
Mark Hollomon wrote: > > > As I've been playing with the PL/Perl implementation, it has dawned on me a > fairly simple, but nice feature could be added. > > I would like to add the following command: > > LOAD PACKAGE 'package-name'; > > Like the current 'LOAD' it would treat 'package-name' > as shared library. But it would also call an intialization function > in the library (package_init maybe?). > > For instance, a user may type: > > LOAD PACKAGE 'plperl'; > > This would not only load the shared library "plperl.so", but call > the function "package_init" which could the use the SPI facilities > to properly setup the system tables for the new language. > > New types could be packaged the same way. > > This would give a very modular way to add 'packages' of functionality. 1. All the functionality required to install such a package is only needed once per database (or if thrown into template1 once per installation). But the entire shared object has to be linked into each time a backend needs one single function from it. I'm not sure if it's such a good idea to waste more and more address space for administrative stuff that isn't required at runtime. 2. Most of such functionality requires PostgreSQL superuser rights (like installing C language functions). Thus it is useless for a regular user. 3. Some of the features might be customizable. Procedural languages for example can be installed as trusted ones or not. Trusted languages can be used by any regular user to CREATE FUNCTION, untrusted ones can't. Placing the installation procedure inside the module itself doesn't make things easier here. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) # -
Re: [HACKERS] idea for 'module' support
Mark Hollomon <mhh@nortelnetworks.com> — 1999-06-21T18:18:11Z
Jan Wieck wrote: > > 1. All the functionality required to install such a package > is only needed once per database (or if thrown into > template1 once per installation). But the entire shared > object has to be linked into each time a backend needs > one single function from it. I'm not sure if it's such a > good idea to waste more and more address space for > administrative stuff that isn't required at runtime. *shrug*. I don't see this as very important, but then, I'm not trying to run a server that is servicing 100's or 1000's of requests per hour either. A valid point in the general case. Hmmmm. Of course, nothing says that the package_init stuff has be in the same file as the runtine stuff. But then what would be the difference from a \i of a SQL script? > > 2. Most of such functionality requires PostgreSQL superuser > rights (like installing C language functions). Thus it is > useless for a regular user. Well, no more useless than C language functions right now. I had in the back of my mind that there would be an 'approved' module location. If a module resides there, then loading would occur as if done by the superuser. It would be the admin's responibility to make sure that that location was secure. Of course, depending on the way the security model in PostgreSQL is implemented, this may not be possible. I haven't looked. > > 3. Some of the features might be customizable. Procedural > languages for example can be installed as trusted ones or > not. Trusted languages can be used by any regular user to > CREATE FUNCTION, untrusted ones can't. Placing the > installation procedure inside the module itself doesn't > make things easier here. Passing parameters couldn't be that hard : LOAD PACKAGE 'package_name' [WITH [attr=value]+]; Thank you for the feedback. I think the concept is worth while. But apparently a good bit of work is needed on the mechanics. -- Mark Hollomon mhh@nortelnetworks.com