Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers

David Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>

From: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-01-04T19:53:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

>> As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having scripts \i each other as appropriate.
> 
> This is a deprecated idea, though.  We're talking about the
> pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but without the
> pg_execute_sql_file() function.  So that part is internal to the backend
> extension code and not available from SQL anymore.
> 
> There's no consensus to publish a bakend \i like function.  So there's
> no support for this upgrade script organizing you're promoting.  Unless
> the consensus changes again (but a commit has been done).

To be clear, consensus was not reached, by my reading. It may be that it makes sense to restore pg_execute_sql_file(), perhaps to run only in the context of ALTER EXTENSION.

Just to be clear where I'm coming from, as an extension developer, I would like PostgreSQL extensions to:

* Prefer convention over configuration
* Not make me do more work that the computer can do

Best,

David