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
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 |