Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade
Date: 2011-02-08 23:54:38
Message-ID: 15351.1297209278@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> (I was vaguely imagining that it could share most of the COMMENT
>> infrastructure --- but haven't looked yet).

> Well the code footprint is quite small already.

Having now looked at it a bit closer, I think the syntax choice is a
complete wash from an implementation standpoint: either way, we'll have
a list of bison productions that build AlterObjectExtensionStmt nodes,
and it goes through the same way after that.  I do think that the
implementation will be a lot more compact if it relies on the COMMENT
infrastructure (ie, get_object_address), but that's an independent
choice.

So really it boils down to which syntax seems more natural and/or easier
to document.  As I said, I think a centralized ALTER EXTENSION syntax
has some advantages from the documentation standpoint; but that's not a
terribly strong argument, especially given that Dimitri has already done
a patch to document things the other way.

Preferences anyone?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dan PortsDate: 2011-02-09 00:23:12
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-02-08 23:00:03
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Extend ALTER TABLE to allow Foreign Keys to be added without ini

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group