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