Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
От | Sandro Santilli |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames |
Дата | |
Msg-id | YyJPicrQVVXOs2QE@c19 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames (Sandro Santilli <strk@kbt.io>) |
Ответы |
RE: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
And now with the actual patch attached ... (sorry) --strk; On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 12:01:04AM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > I'm attaching an updated version of the patch. This time the patch > is tested. Nothing changes unless the .control file for the subject > extension doesn't have a "wildcard_upgrades = true" statement. > > When wildcard upgrades are enabled, a file with a "%" symbol as > the "source" part of the upgrade path will match any version and > will be used if a specific version upgrade does not exist. > This means that in presence of the following files: > > postgis--3.0.0--3.2.0.sql > postgis--%--3.2.0.sql > > The first one will be used for going from 3.0.0 to 3.2.0. > > This is the intention. The patch lacks automated tests and can > probably be improved. > > For more context, a previous (non-working) version of this patch was > submitted to commitfest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3654/ > > --strk; > > On Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 11:20:55AM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > > On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 04:50:20PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > > On Fri, 2022-05-27 at 17:37 -0400, Regina Obe wrote: > > > > > > > > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2022-February/029500.html > > > > > > > > Does anyone think this is such a horrible idea that we should abandon all > > > > hope? > > > > > > I don't think this idea is fundamentally wrong, but I have two worries: > > > > > > 1. It would be a good idea good to make sure that there is not both > > > "extension--%--2.0.sql" and "extension--1.0--2.0.sql" present. > > > Otherwise the behavior might be indeterministic. > > > > I'd make sure to use extension--1.0--2.0.sql in that case (more > > specific first). > > > > > 2. What if you have a "postgis--%--3.3.sql", and somebody tries to upgrade > > > their PostGIS 1.1 installation with it? Would that work? > > > > For PostGIS in particular it will NOT work as the PostGIS upgrade > > script checks for the older version and decides if the upgrade is > > valid or not. This is the same upgrade code used for non-extension > > installs. > > > > > Having a lower bound for a matching version might be a good idea, > > > although I have no idea how to do that. > > > > I was thinking of a broader pattern matching support, like: > > > > postgis--3.%--3.3.sql > > > > But it would be better to start simple and eventually if needed > > increase the complexity ? > > > > Another option could be specifying something in the control file, > > which would also probably be a good idea to still allow some > > extensions to use '%' in the version string (for example). > > > > --strk;
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: