On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but the truth is that the extension name, at least, is known from the control file.
>
> Yeah, I think it's true in the current code base that we always know the
> extension name we are interested in. However, that's no protection if
> we allow extensions to contain the separator substring. Consider
> foo--bar--baz.sql
> Is this an update script for foo (from version bar to version baz),
> or is it an install script for some other extension named foo--bar?
>
> Also, I think it'd be better if we didn't assume that we will always
> know the extension name when trying to make sense of a script name.
> That's the sort of assumption that will bite you on the rear eventually.
Works for me.
Best,
David