Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> OK, so with that, attached is an example of the complete conversion diff
>> for a contrib module (hstore in particular).  Although "git status"

> I see you're not using the @extschema@ placeholder in the upgrade
> script.  It is intentional?

Yes, it should be unnecessary given the search_path setup done by
execute_extension_script().  Also, I think that a relocatable
extension's script should not be subject to @extschema@ substitution,
no matter what.

> I think you'd be interested into this reworked SQL query.  It should be
> providing exactly the script file you need as an upgrade from unpackaged.

This seems overly complicated.  I have a version of it that I'll publish
as soon as I've tested it on all the contrib modules ...

			regards, tom lane