Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;
Date: 2010-12-13 15:50:43
Message-ID: 8174.1292255443@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>> Why not just use an upgrade script naming convention?

> Mainly, because of the situation where I have may versions that can
> all be upgraded from the same script. I'ld much rather distribution
> just 3 scripts (install + 2 upgrades), and a control file with
> something like this (pretend I'm on version 2.6)
> upgragde-1.0 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.1.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.1.2 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.2 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.3 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.4 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.4.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgrade-2.0 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.1 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.2 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.2.1 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.3 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.4 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.5 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql

I see no advantage of this over a script per version combination, so
long as you allow scripts to \include each other.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-12-13 15:53:54 Re: initdb failure with Postgres 8.4.4
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2010-12-13 15:49:53 Re: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED