On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (I'm not wedded to the phrase "FROM OLD" in particular, but it does
>>> reuse already existing keywords. Also, maybe it'd be better to reserve
>>> a version string such as "old" or "bootstrap", so that the bootstrap
>>> script could be called something more legible like foo-bootstrap-1.0.sql.)
>
>> Well, it's not really a bootstrap, is it? FROM OLD is okay, though not great. FROM BEFORE would be better. Or
IMPLICIT?(It was implicitly an extension before.) Or, hey, FROM NOTHING! :-)
>
> Hmm, you're right. The word bootstrap implies that we're starting from
> nothing, which is exactly what we're *not* doing (starting from nothing
> is the easy "clean install" case). By the same token, FROM NOTHING
> isn't the right phrase either. An accurate description would be
> something like FROM UNPACKAGED OBJECTS, but I'm not seriously proposing
> that ...
Well, you're bootstrapping the extension mechanism.
> Other ideas anyone?
I still think you might be over-designing this. Upgrading from the
pre-extension world doesn't need to be elegant; it just has to work.
And you can do that yourself, with the proposed infrastructure:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg00911.php
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company