Re: [postgis-devel] About EXTENSION from UNPACKAGED on PostgreSQL 13

OK, well, what PostGIS needs is the ability for 'ALTER EXTENSION …. UPDATE foo’ to end up with two extensions in the end, ‘foo’ and ‘foo_new’. That’s what’s happening in the 2.x -> 3 upgrade process, as ‘postgis’ becomes ‘postgis’ and ‘postgis_raster’.

Presumably 15 years out from the 1.x -> 2.x we can stop worrying about bundling unpackaged postgis into an extension, and just recommend a hard upgrade dump/restore to the hardy souls still running 1.x.

P.

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 7:37 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Sandro Santilli (strk(at)kbt(dot)io) wrote:
>> On pgsql-hackers we only want to find a future-proof way to "package
>> existing objects into an extension". If the syntax
>> `CREATE EXTENSION <extname> FROM UNPACKAGED`
>> has gone, would it be ok for just:
>> `CREATE EXTENSION <extname>`
>> to intercept unpackaged objects and package them ?
>
> No. The reason it was removed is because it's not going to be safe to
> do when we have trusted extensions. Perhaps it would be possible to
> figure out a way to make it safe, but the reason FROM UNPACKAGED was
> created and existed doesn't apply any more. That PostGIS has been using
> it for something else entirely is unfortunate, but the way to address
> what PostGIS needs is to talk about that, not talk about how this ugly
> hack used to work and doesn't any more.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel(at)lists(dot)osgeo(dot)org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel