| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Smitha Pamujula <smitha(dot)pamujula(at)iovation(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Grant Holly <grant(dot)holly(at)iovation(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade + Extensions |
| Date: | 2015-09-01 00:03:58 |
| Message-ID: | E0B2C90E-E2CA-4755-95FC-24DEBE618B70@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In any case, there is plenty of precedent for hard-coding knowledge about
> specific version updates into pg_upgrade. The question here is whether
> it's feasible to handle extensions that way. I think we could reasonably
> expect to know about cases where a formerly separate extension got
> integrated into core,
+1
> but are there other cases where pg_upgrade would
> need to ignore an extension in the old database?
Not that I can think of, unless it’s already present because it was in template1 or something.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-09-01 00:10:11 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-31 23:58:24 | Re: pg_upgrade + Extensions |