| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately |
| Date: | 2013-06-01 15:16:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20130601151625.GB6732@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-06-01 11:07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> > On 05/31/2013 08:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Changing SQL syntax in the back-branches isn't normally something
> >> we do, but I confess I don't see any real reason not to do it in
> >> this case.
>
> > That was part of my hesitation, but I don't see any better way to fix
> > existing installations and this is pretty well self-contained. Any
> > other opinions out there?
>
> I don't like this approach much.
>
> 1. It does nothing to fix the issue in *existing* databases, which
> won't have pg_depend entries like this.
Well, you can now write an extension upgrade script that adds the
missing dependencies. To me that sounds better than letting it fiddle
with pg_depend.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2013-06-01 15:23:10 | Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-06-01 15:14:27 | Re: detecting binary backup in progress |