Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Дата
Msg-id 27518.1297630368@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Ответы Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> OK, so with that, attached is an example of the complete conversion diff
>> for a contrib module (hstore in particular).  Although "git status"

> I see you're not using the @extschema@ placeholder in the upgrade
> script.  It is intentional?

Yes, it should be unnecessary given the search_path setup done by
execute_extension_script().  Also, I think that a relocatable
extension's script should not be subject to @extschema@ substitution,
no matter what.

> I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query.  It should be
> providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged.

This seems overly complicated.  I have a version of it that I'll publish
as soon as I've tested it on all the contrib modules ...
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Dimitri Fontaine
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Следующее
От: Jeff Janes
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move backwards