Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames

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;

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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