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: 2011-01-03T19:59:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Not what I have understood. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01014.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01045.php > > AS there was no answer, the meaning for me is that it was ok to > proceed. On this list people agreeing often remain silent. There were several of us who were not silent. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg00804.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg00796.php The fact that the last two messages in the thread say something else does not mean that they represent the consensus. >>> Note that we always need to support the placeholder here, because of >>> course following dependencies at this point isn't possible. >> >> I thought placeholders were going away, too. Did I lose track? > > Oh, dear, yes :) See the documentation for the relocatable parameter. > We know handle two kinds of extensions, some of them you can't offer > better than placeholders to allow users to define the schema where they > will land. Also, at upgrade time, I don't see any other way to solve > the problem. Do you? > > http://pgsql.tapoueh.org/extensions/doc/html/extend-extension.html Right, I forgot about the relocatable parameter. I kind of expect that most extensions *would* be relocatable, though. Maybe it should be expected to be true if it's not present? Or perhaps require non-relocatable extensions to have a "fixed_schema" control key or something? Either will work, just trying to find the likely convention to avoid configuration in most cases. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and most extensions wouldn't be relocatable? > Yeah. Before extension existed, it has always been working like that, > our users already depend on such a behavior, nothing new here. I just > don't see how extension could solve that is all I'm saying. Fair enough. >> The new .so should not be installed until the upgrade is been run. > > Nice statement. How do you make that happen? Nope. David