Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Remove _PG_fini()

  1. Remaining reference to _PG_fini() in ldap_password_func

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2024-08-20T04:46:03Z

    Hi all,

While hacking on a different thing, I've noticed that
ldap_password_func had the idea to define _PG_fini().  This is
pointless, as library unloading is not supported in the backend, and
something that has been cleaned up from the tree in ab02d702ef08.
That's not something to encourage, perhaps, as well..

How about removing it like in the attached to be consistent?

Thanks,
--
Michael

  2. Re: Remaining reference to _PG_fini() in ldap_password_func

    Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> — 2024-08-20T06:59:12Z

    On 20/08/2024 07:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> While hacking on a different thing, I've noticed that
> ldap_password_func had the idea to define _PG_fini().  This is
> pointless, as library unloading is not supported in the backend, and
> something that has been cleaned up from the tree in ab02d702ef08.
> That's not something to encourage, perhaps, as well..
> 
> How about removing it like in the attached to be consistent?

+1. There's also a prototype for _PG_fini() in fmgr.h, let's remove that 
too.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)

  3. Re: Remaining reference to _PG_fini() in ldap_password_func

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2024-08-20T08:53:24Z

    On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 09:59:12AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> +1. There's also a prototype for _PG_fini() in fmgr.h, let's remove that
> too.

Yes, I was wondering too whether we should force the hand of
extensions to know that it is pointless to support unloading, telling
everybody to delete this code.

I'm OK with the agressive move and remove the whole.  Any thoughts
from others?
--
Michael

  4. Re: Remaining reference to _PG_fini() in ldap_password_func

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2024-08-20T13:05:54Z

    Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> On 20/08/2024 07:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> How about removing it like in the attached to be consistent?

> +1. There's also a prototype for _PG_fini() in fmgr.h, let's remove that 
> too.

+1.  I think the fmgr.h prototype may have been left there
deliberately to avoid breaking extension code, but it's past
time to clean it up.

			regards, tom lane

  5. Re: Remaining reference to _PG_fini() in ldap_password_func

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2024-08-20T22:26:31Z

    On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 09:05:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
>> +1. There's also a prototype for _PG_fini() in fmgr.h, let's remove that 
>> too.
> 
> +1.  I think the fmgr.h prototype may have been left there
> deliberately to avoid breaking extension code, but it's past
> time to clean it up.

Okay, I've removed all that then.  Thanks for the feedback.
--
Michael