Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade
Date: 2011-02-08 18:24:28
Message-ID: 22565.1297189468@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> No, this is not doable, or at least not in a way that provides any
>> benefit over just dropping and reinstalling. The problem is that it
>> is going to fall down all over the place if other objects are
>> depending on objects provided by the extension. Like:
>>
>> CREATE VIEW v AS SELECT extensionfunc(1);

> Ah, right, of course. I don't suppose CREATE OR REPLACE would work, either, in some cases at least?

But figuring out just what commands to issue is pretty nearly AI-complete.
The whole point of ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE is to have a human do that
and then give you a script to run.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2011-02-08 18:26:45 Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2011-02-08 18:18:51 Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade