Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David E. Wheeler
Тема Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers
Дата
Msg-id 458B9F78-6C4C-464A-9888-441E6165F2BF@kineticode.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Ответы Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

>> As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having scripts \i each other as appropriate.
>
> This is a deprecated idea, though.  We're talking about the
> pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but without the
> pg_execute_sql_file() function.  So that part is internal to the backend
> extension code and not available from SQL anymore.
>
> There's no consensus to publish a bakend \i like function.  So there's
> no support for this upgrade script organizing you're promoting.  Unless
> the consensus changes again (but a commit has been done).

To be clear, consensus was not reached, by my reading. It may be that it makes sense to restore pg_execute_sql_file(),
perhapsto run only in the context of ALTER EXTENSION. 

Just to be clear where I'm coming from, as an extension developer, I would like PostgreSQL extensions to:

* Prefer convention over configuration
* Not make me do more work that the computer can do

Best,

David



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: WIP: Range Types
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Sync Rep Design