From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Inline Extension |
Date: | 2012-01-23 15:26:22 |
Message-ID: | 87ipk2cue9.fsf@hi-media-techno.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm. But CREATE EXTENSION / ALTER EXTENSION doesn't seem right,
> because the files in the directory correspond to *available*
> extensions, not already-created ones. We need some way of dumping and
I would have limited the dump query to only known installed extensions,
right. The update scripts are still needed because with inline
extensions you typically never see a 1.2 script but a 1.0 then 1.0--1.1
and then a 1.1--1.2.
> restoring the files themselves, not the extension that can be created
> from them. I suspect internal functions (pg_whatever) make more sense
> than new SQL syntax, since this is really only to make pg_dump happy.
That could well be, yes, but what would this function do that the
commands are not doing? I'm ok not to invent specific syntax to solve
that problem, I just think that we should already have all we need :)
>> Or do you still want to insist that dump/restore shouldn't care about
>> any extension, inline or not, and so you're given the responsibility to
>> do the exact same thing yourself on the client side?
>
> How about adding a new pg_dump option to suppress this part of the dump?
Makes sense, indeed. Well one could of course manually filter the dump
object list too, of course…
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-23 15:34:12 | Re: Re: Add minor version to v3 protocol to allow changes without breaking backwards compatibility |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-23 15:23:22 | Re: WAL Restore process during recovery |