From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2011-02-10 16:33:31 |
Message-ID: | 8787.1297355611@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Actually, it occurs to me that the need for ALTER EXTENSION DROP could
>> be upon us sooner than we think. The cases where an extension upgrade
>> script would need that are
>> (1) you want to remove some deprecated piece of the extension's API;
>> (2) you want to remove some no-longer-needed internal function.
>> Without ALTER EXTENSION DROP it's flat out impossible to do either.
> What if you just DROP FUNCTION in the upgrade script?
That would be rejected because you're not allowed to drop an individual
member object of an extension. (And no, I don't want to have a kluge in
dependency.c that makes that test work differently when
creating_extension.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-10 16:41:50 | Re: Adding new variables into GUC |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-10 15:59:23 | Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade |