Обсуждение: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade changes can it use CREATE EXTENSION?
I'm not too familiar with the innards of pg_upgrade, but we've been discussing it a lot for past couple of days and how it's causing issues for PostGIS upgrades. I think this thread covers most of the issues. https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026355.html My thought was is it possible for pg_upgrade to be taught to use CREATE EXENSION if asked? Right now we don't support PostgreSQL 11 on PostGIS 2.3 and we really would like not to because there are too many changes done in 11 that we feel queezy about backporting. Even if we did, package maintainers would have to provide 2.3 on 11 and 2.4 on 11 just so people can pg_upgrade to PostgreSQL 11 and then ALTER EXTESNION postgis UPDATE; To postgis 2.4.0 Given that latest PostgreSQL 11 head already doesn't compile against PostGIS 2.4, I'm not confident we can fix 2.4 for 11. So this will continue to be more of a problem especially at the rate that PostgreSQL is changing these days. Right now crafty users have to do something like this to use pg_upgrade https://gist.github.com/Komzpa/994d5aaf340067ccec0e My solution of let's not call it postgis-2.4 but just postgis-2 from thenceforward for the life of 2 major series because we don't break backward compatibility often in a PostGIS minor version got shot down. Any thoughts on this? Thanks, Regina Obe PostGIS PSC member
"Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us> writes: > I think this thread covers most of the issues. > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026355.html > My thought was is it possible for pg_upgrade to be taught to use CREATE > EXENSION if asked? We intentionally *don't* do that; pg_dump goes to a lot of trouble to duplicate the old extension contents exactly, instead. There are a bunch of corner cases that would fail if we allowed the new installation to have different extension contents than the old. Believe you me, we'd rather have just issued CREATE EXTENSION, but it doesn't work. Looking quickly at the thread you cite, I wonder how much of this problem is caused by including version numbers in the library's .so filename. Have you considered not doing that? Our experience with maintaining the contrib modules is that it's easier to attach a version number to an individual function (in its C name, where it's irrelevant to SQL users). If you incompatibly upgrade a given function, you can leave a stub behind, with the old C symbol, that does nothing but throw an error if called. Or you can keep on supporting the old API if it's easy enough; it doesn't have to be a library-wide decision. > My solution of let's not call it postgis-2.4 but just postgis-2 from > thenceforward for the life of 2 major series because we don't break backward > compatibility often in a PostGIS minor version got shot down. The thread you mention doesn't seem to include any arguments why not to do that. regards, tom lane
Sorry for the cross posting on this one, but I think it's important both groups are aware. >> I think this thread covers most of the issues. >> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026355.html >> My thought was is it possible for pg_upgrade to be taught to use CREATE >> EXENSION if asked? > We intentionally *don't* do that; pg_dump goes to a lot of trouble to > duplicate the old extension contents exactly, instead. There are a bunch > of corner cases that would fail if we allowed the new installation to > have different extension contents than the old. Believe you me, we'd > rather have just issued CREATE EXTENSION, but it doesn't work. > Looking quickly at the thread you cite, I wonder how much of this problem > is caused by including version numbers in the library's .so filename. Most of it is. That's why I proposed at least only bumping on major upgrade. So postgis 2.4 so would be called postgis-2.soinstead of postgis-2.4.so We would only change on disk format during major in which case pg_upgrade wouldn’t work for folks anyway (such as what happenedgoing from PostGIS 1.5 to 2.0) > Have you considered not doing that? Our experience with maintaining the > contrib modules is that it's easier to attach a version number to an > individual function (in its C name, where it's irrelevant to SQL users). > If you incompatibly upgrade a given function, you can leave a stub behind, > with the old C symbol, that does nothing but throw an error if called. > Or you can keep on supporting the old API if it's easy enough; it > doesn't have to be a library-wide decision. > Have you considered not doing that? Our experience with maintaining the > contrib modules is that it's easier to attach a version number to an > individual function (in its C name, where it's irrelevant to SQL users). > If you incompatibly upgrade a given function, you can leave a stub behind, > with the old C symbol, that does nothing but throw an error if called. > Or you can keep on supporting the old API if it's easy enough; it > doesn't have to be a library-wide decision. People were all worked up about breaking ABI and also not being able to run two different versions of PostGIS in same cluster. We rarely break ABI and if we did, like you said it wouldn't kill us to keep the old C name around until we did a major upgrade. So I'm all for that idea. I figure we'll rarely need to do that anyway. It's mostly PostGIS developers like me that need to run two different versions of PostGIS in same cluster mostly for regressiontesting. Which is why I proposed having a configure switch which is by default off. Here is my original vote request. https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026319.html > My solution of let's not call it postgis-2.4 but just postgis-2 from > thenceforward for the life of 2 major series because we don't break backward > compatibility often in a PostGIS minor version got shot down. > The thread you mention doesn't seem to include any arguments why not > to do that. > regards, tom lane Some people had issue with trying to do that at PostGIS 2.4 right after we already released the alpha and are less than amonth away from release. Though technically we haven't released beta yet so I didn't think it was that big of a deal. But I'm willing to wait for PostGIS 2.5 to appease people. Tom, as always, thanks for being a voice of reason, Regina
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:01:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us> writes: > > I think this thread covers most of the issues. > > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-August/026355.html > > My thought was is it possible for pg_upgrade to be taught to use CREATE > > EXENSION if asked? > > We intentionally *don't* do that; pg_dump goes to a lot of trouble to > duplicate the old extension contents exactly, instead. There are a bunch > of corner cases that would fail if we allowed the new installation to > have different extension contents than the old. Believe you me, we'd > rather have just issued CREATE EXTENSION, but it doesn't work. Did you mean `pg_upgrade` ("goes to a lot of trouble") ? Because I'm pretty sure I saw a `CREATE EXTENSION` in a dump created by pg_dump from PostgreSQL 9.6 > Looking quickly at the thread you cite, I wonder how much of this problem > is caused by including version numbers in the library's .so filename. > Have you considered not doing that? The name change is intentional, to reflect a promise we make between patch-level releases but not between minor-level releases. The promise to keep C function signatures referenced by SQL objects immutable and behavior compatible. --strk;
Sandro Santilli <strk@kbt.io> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:01:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We intentionally *don't* do that; pg_dump goes to a lot of trouble to
>> duplicate the old extension contents exactly, instead. There are a bunch
>> of corner cases that would fail if we allowed the new installation to
>> have different extension contents than the old. Believe you me, we'd
>> rather have just issued CREATE EXTENSION, but it doesn't work.
> Did you mean `pg_upgrade` ("goes to a lot of trouble") ?
To be precise, pg_dump when working on behalf of pg_upgrade (that is, with
the --binary-upgrade switch).
>> Looking quickly at the thread you cite, I wonder how much of this problem
>> is caused by including version numbers in the library's .so filename.
>> Have you considered not doing that?
> The name change is intentional, to reflect a promise we make between
> patch-level releases but not between minor-level releases. The promise
> to keep C function signatures referenced by SQL objects immutable and
> behavior compatible.
FWIW, I do not think that the library file name is a useful place to
try to enforce such a thing. Changing the file name creates complications
for upgrade, and it doesn't actually stop you from breaking anything.
regards, tom lane