Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3
Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>
From: Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-02-11T11:14:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 02/11/2011 05:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Actually, I was having second thoughts about that while at dinner. What > is the value of separating the bootstrap-an-extension-from-old-objects > operation into two steps? It's certainly not convenient for users, and > I don't see that the intermediate state with an empty extension has any > redeeming social value for developers either. (If you need such a thing, > just make an empty creation script.) > > So: let's forget the concept of a special "null version" altogether, at > least from the user's-eye viewpoint. Instead, the way to bootstrap from > loose objects is something like > > CREATE EXTENSION foo [ VERSION '1.0' ] [ FROM OLD ] The above command assumes there is only one unpackaged version from which users might update from. Is that what is wanted? I am wondering if FROM OLD should be FROM OLD VERSION version (or better: FROM UNPACKAGED VERSION version). This would also solve how to name the old version(s). Author decides. - Anssi