Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> [ ALTER object SET EXTENSION versus ALTER EXTENSION ADD object ]

>> OK, that seems like an equally reasonable syntax; although doing it the
>> way I was thinking might have less of a code and documentation footprint
>> (I was vaguely imagining that it could share most of the COMMENT
>> infrastructure --- but haven't looked yet). In any case it seems like
>> this is a good piece to do next, since the required functionality is
>> clear and it's essential for more than one reason.

> Well the code footprint is quite small already.

I was thinking about it more from the documentation side: touch one man
page versus touch nearly all the ALTER pages. In addition, if it's all
on the ALTER EXTENSION page then we can reference that as a list of the
types of objects managed by extensions, which is something that's
documented nowhere right now.

Has anybody got any strong preference for one of these alternatives on
more abstract grounds? You could cite ALTER OBJECT SET NAMESPACE/OWNER
as precedents for the one syntax, but COMMENT seems like a precedent
for the other, so that consideration seems like nearly a wash to me.

Any other opinions out there?

regards, tom lane