Re: The scope of extensions

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:20:14PM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 21:16 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 16:46 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:22:19AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> wrote:
> > > > > The reason for the above is that I'd very much like to be able to
> > > > > version my entire application's schema using the extension mechanism
> > > > > (or something based upon the ideas in the extensions mechanism).  Since
> > > > > SCHEMA is already taken, maybe CREATE/ALTER/DROP_APPLICATION.  This
> > > > > would permit easy installation and upgrade of all the objects relating
> > > > > to a single application installed in the database.
> > > >
> > > > not following that -- it sounds like you are trying to hook into the
> > > > grammar? that's something you can't do through an extension.  but it's
> > > > an interesting thought to do application versioning through the
> > > > extension system...i'm pretty sure it hasn't been tried.  there may be
> > > > some pitfalls though.
> > >
> > > This was mainly just speculative--in the case that the extension
> > > system didn't support everything I wanted, I was wondering if
> > > extending the grammar would be a viable approach; obviously it would
> > > require other work too!
> > >
> > > Every project I've worked on which uses PostgreSQL has independently
> > > implemented its own set of installation and upgrade scripts, which
> > > has typically included some form of table for storing the current
> > > schema version and other settings to allow the scripts to safely do
> > > their job.  However, I'm not a big fan of unnecessary wheel
> > > reinvention, and if PostgreSQL could provide a standard mechanism
> > > for doing this which all applications could utilise, that would be
> > > (IMO) an absolutely fantastic feature.  If extensions can be used
> > > as they stand to realise this, then that's absolutely great: the
> > > end user installation instructions can be reduced to
> > >   CREATE EXTENSION myapplication;
> > > and the equivalent for upgrades.  I'm not sure if another keyword
> > > would be useful in this context, since this is much more than a
> > > single extension, it's an entire schema.
> >
> > Won't work if you care to save your database with pg_dump. Any tables
> > created by extensions won't be saved with pg_dump. All you will get is a
> > "CREATE EXTENSION myapplication;", and no data.
>
> Actually, I'm not completely right here. You may configure your
> extension to allow your tables to be dumped. See
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/extend-extensions.html#AEN51978 for details.
>
> IOW, it may work, but you need to be extra-careful. I don't know anyone
> doing this right now.

Thanks, I'll have a closer look at this.

An equivalent to EXTENSION which did dump everything by default would
be the ideal solution.  I wonder how much work that would entail--I
could take a stab at it if it's not insanely complex, and it's not
considered absolutely insane.


Regards,
Roger

--
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux    http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   schroot and sbuild  http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
   `-    GPG Public Key      F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800