Re: creating extension including dependencies

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: creating extension including dependencies
Date: 2015-07-27 13:18:06
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRcbx4gE9d8QpacYRetT49zzGS5Oh=_q6wKGO8Z3W+mEg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Yes that's what I meant by the change of checking order in the explanation
> above. I did that because I thought code would be more complicated
> otherwise, but apparently I was stupid...

+ In case the extension specifies schema in its control file, the schema
s/schema/<literal>schema</>/

+++ b/src/test/modules/test_extensions/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Generated subdirectories
+/results/
+/tmp_check/
test_extensions/.gitignore is missing /log/.

Something also has not been discussed yet: what to do with new_version
and old_version (the options of CreateExtensionStmt)? As of now if
those options are defined they are not passed down to the parent
extensions but shouldn't we raise an error if they are used in
combination with CASCADE? In any case, I think that the behavior
chosen should be documented.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-07-27 13:24:47 Re: spgist recovery assertion failure
Previous Message Egor Rogov 2015-07-27 12:51:15 Re: REVOKE [ADMIN OPTION FOR] ROLE