Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>
Cc: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.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: 2011-01-05T18:05:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes: >> 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). My understanding of the consensus is that it wasn't felt necessary for the purpose for which it was proposed. I think it could be re-proposed with a different argument and very possibly accepted. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company