| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers |
| Date: | 2011-01-04 19:53:42 |
| Message-ID: | 458B9F78-6C4C-464A-9888-441E6165F2BF@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having scripts \i each other as appropriate.
>
> This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about the
> pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but without the
> pg_execute_sql_file() function. So that part is internal to the backend
> extension code and not available from SQL anymore.
>
> There's no consensus to publish a bakend \i like function. So there's
> no support for this upgrade script organizing you're promoting. Unless
> the consensus changes again (but a commit has been done).
To be clear, consensus was not reached, by my reading. It may be that it makes sense to restore pg_execute_sql_file(), perhaps to run only in the context of ALTER EXTENSION.
Just to be clear where I'm coming from, as an extension developer, I would like PostgreSQL extensions to:
* Prefer convention over configuration
* Not make me do more work that the computer can do
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-04 19:54:04 | Re: Sync Rep Design |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-04 19:52:30 | Re: WIP: Range Types |