From: | Sandro Santilli <strk(at)kbt(dot)io> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Regina Obe <r(at)pcorp(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames |
Date: | 2023-03-08 12:32:07 |
Message-ID: | 20230308123207.cbvozwyicy6gbbxu@c19 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:13:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I am maintaining is that no extension author is actually going
> to write such a script, indeed they probably won't trouble to write
> any downgrade-like actions at all. Which makes the proposed design
> mostly a foot-gun.
What I'm maintaining is that such authors should be warned about
the risk, and discouraged from installing any wildcard-containing
script UNLESS they deal with downgrade protection.
PostGIS does deal with that kind of protection (yes, could be helped
somehow in doing that by PostgreSQL).
> I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of trying to support multiple upgrade
> paths in one script. I just don't like this particular design for that,
> because it requires the extension author to make promises that nobody
> is actually going to deliver on.
Would you be ok with a stricter pattern matching ? Something like:
postgis--3.3.%--3.3.ANY.sql
postgis--3.3.ANY--3.4.0.sql
Would that be easier to promise something about ?
--strk;
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-03-08 12:34:23 | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |
Previous Message | Sandro Santilli | 2023-03-08 12:27:36 | Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames |