| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions |
| Date: | 2020-09-26 14:25:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_aapS0Fh59_0Y5_fFLS-5BM=MODWyD6w0Akh77YZktimQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 10:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
> > fields so all the required infrastructure was already there. I just
> > added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
> > patch.
>
> The reason that pg_available_extensions has only the fields it has
> is that these other values are potentially extension-version-dependent.
> I do not think we can accept this patch.
Oh, I didn't know there could be multiple control files per extension,
and I missed the "aux" reference. So indeed this patch is
unacceptable.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Förster | 2020-09-26 14:35:07 | Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE |
| Previous Message | Paul Förster | 2020-09-26 14:24:01 | Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE |