From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
Date: | 2010-12-10 22:58:29 |
Message-ID: | 0BA974D9-3CB7-41D6-AE80-DB40A7659AD6@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 10, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> If we assume the target is the current version, then we only need the
>> old-version number in the file name, so it doesn't matter how many
>> parts it has.
>
> IIUC, that puts even more work on the shoulders of the extension
> authors, because the file named foo-1.12.sql is the one used to upgrade
> from 1.12. That means that at each release, it's a different file
> content, it's there to upgrade to a newer release.
Yeah, it should be *to* 1.12. FWIW, this is how Bricolage upgrade scripts are handled: version-string-named directories with the appropriate scripts to upgrade *to* the named version number.
> So, we have a sound proposal for the ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE command,
> which comes later. So we keep version numbers in the CREATE EXTENSION
> patch and the control files, and remove the facility to get this number
> from the Makefile. Is that right?
Yes. No new variables in Makefile at all IIUC.
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-12-10 23:00:47 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-10 22:58:22 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |