Re: pg_upgrade libraries check

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade libraries check
Date: 2012-05-27 18:52:51
Message-ID: 4FC27803.2090105@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/27/2012 02:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> AIUI, for Tom's scheme to work pg_upgrade would need not to check
>> libraries that belonged to extension functions. Currently it simply
>> assumes that what is present in the old cluster is exactly what will be
>> needed in the new cluster. Tom's proposed scheme would completely
>> invalidate that assumption (which I would argue is already of doubtful
>> validity). Instead of explicitly trying to LOAD the libraries it would
>> have to rely on the "CREATE EXTENSION foo" failing, presumably at some
>> time before it would be too late to abort.
> Well, the scheme I had in mind would require pg_upgrade to verify that
> the new cluster contains an extension control file for each extension in
> the old cluster (which is something it really oughta do anyway, if it
> doesn't already). After that, though, it ought not be looking at the
> individual functions defined by an extension --- it is the extension's
> business which libraries those are in.
>

Yeah, that makes sense.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-05-27 18:53:50 Re: Per-Database Roles
Previous Message Sergey Koposov 2012-05-27 18:45:19 Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile