| 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 15:32:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20130601153259.GD6732@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-06-01 11:31:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2013-06-01 11:07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Per my point #2, that would be the wrong solution, quite aside from the
> wrongness of dumping the fixup burden on the extension author. For one
> thing, the extension author has no idea whether his script is being
> loaded into a database that has this patch. If it doesn't, adding a
> command like this would cause the script to fail outright. If it does,
> then the command is unnecessary, since the patch also includes a code
> change that adds the dependency.
> But in any case, making rules act differently from other table
> properties for this purpose seems seriously wrong.
What's your proposal to fix this situation then?
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 15:39:11 | Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-06-01 15:31:39 | Re: detecting binary backup in progress |