From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Bug List <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Upgrading an extension's extnamespace from user-specified to a defined schema breaks dump/restore |
Date: | 2024-05-09 01:50:58 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYokVMSNzEZEvFVEAuFVySadK1H0ccRFk4BgvhLGTaouw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wednesday, May 8, 2024, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 5:50 PM David G. Johnston <
> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Immaterial, they ignore @extschema@ already.
>>
>>
> On a related note, our documentation says:
>
> The target schema is determined by the schema parameter in the control
> file if that is given, otherwise by the SCHEMA option of CREATE EXTENSION
> if that is given, otherwise the current default object creation schema (the
> first one in the caller's search_path).
>
>
> So it actually comes from pg_catalog, not the control file.
>
Never mind, in the context of only create extension, which this paragraph
appears in, this is perfectly fine. We simply don’t discuss the fact there
is a choice between the control file and the installed value when updating
an extension, and that the value if the control file is ignored. I’ve got
some thoughts for some status quo documentation updates that I’ll work
through, and some idea of how we’d frame this if this dba tool does get
added.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 周志勤 | 2024-05-09 02:43:37 | Re: Re: edb installation failed for pgadmin when username is Chinese under c;\user #7432 |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-05-09 01:31:04 | Re: Upgrading an extension's extnamespace from user-specified to a defined schema breaks dump/restore |