Re: Quick Extensions Question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Quick Extensions Question
Date: 2011-03-03 22:52:42
Message-ID: 9424.1299192762@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Mar 3, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Extensions yes, but not managed with those commands. You'd have to
>> switch over to saying "CREATE/DROP EXTENSION plpgsql", etc. The LANGUAGE
>> commands themselves would now only occur within those extension
>> scripts.

> Ah, I see. So if someone installed a PL with CREATE LANGUAGE and my
extension requires that, PL, the requirement will not appear to be
fulfilled. Kind of a bummer. Maybe add a note to CREATE LANGUAGE
suggesting the use of CREATE EXTENSION, instead?

Well, the recovery path at that point would involve "CREATE EXTENSION
plsomething FROM unpackaged". This doesn't seem to me to be any worse
than the messiness around upgrading contrib modules into extensions.
We would have to document it of course. But this is exactly analogous
to the case where you write an extension that "requires citext", and
then somebody complains because his 9.0-upgraded citext installation
doesn't satisfy the requires.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-03-03 23:24:10 Re: Quick Extensions Question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-03-03 22:28:47 Re: file signature for files that make up postgres database