From: | Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
Date: | 2011-02-11 11:14:38 |
Message-ID: | 4D551A1E.1000007@thl.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/11/2011 05:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, I was having second thoughts about that while at dinner. What
> is the value of separating the bootstrap-an-extension-from-old-objects
> operation into two steps? It's certainly not convenient for users, and
> I don't see that the intermediate state with an empty extension has any
> redeeming social value for developers either. (If you need such a thing,
> just make an empty creation script.)
>
> So: let's forget the concept of a special "null version" altogether, at
> least from the user's-eye viewpoint. Instead, the way to bootstrap from
> loose objects is something like
>
> CREATE EXTENSION foo [ VERSION '1.0' ] [ FROM OLD ]
The above command assumes there is only one unpackaged version from
which users might update from. Is that what is wanted? I am wondering if
FROM OLD should be FROM OLD VERSION version (or better: FROM UNPACKAGED
VERSION version). This would also solve how to name the old version(s).
Author decides.
- Anssi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tobias Brox | 2011-02-11 11:26:01 | Re: Why we don't want hints Was: Slow count(*) again... |
Previous Message | mac_man2008@yahoo.it | 2011-02-11 10:03:37 | Re: Sorting. When? |