Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
Cc: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-12-13T15:50:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> writes: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote: >> Why not just use an upgrade script naming convention? > Mainly, because of the situation where I have may versions that can > all be upgraded from the same script. I'ld much rather distribution > just 3 scripts (install + 2 upgrades), and a control file with > something like this (pretend I'm on version 2.6) > upgragde-1.0 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgragde-1.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgragde-1.1.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgragde-1.1.2 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgragde-1.2 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgragde-1.3 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgragde-1.4 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgragde-1.4.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql > upgrade-2.0 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql > upgrade-2.1 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql > upgrade-2.2 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql > upgrade-2.2.1 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql > upgrade-2.3 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql > upgrade-2.4 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql > upgrade-2.5 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql I see no advantage of this over a script per version combination, so long as you allow scripts to \include each other. regards, tom lane