On 21.01.2012 00:00, Daniel Farina wrote:
> I think this is somewhat rube-goldberg-esque, and denies non-superuser
> roles the ability to get more version management of schema and
> operators. As-is many organizations are submitting "migrations" via
> plain SQL that include committing to a version management table that
> is maintained by convention, and as-is that is considered a modern-day
Even if you give the version number in the CREATE EXTENSION command,
it's by convention that people actually maintain a sane versioning
policy. If people don't take version management seriously, you will
quickly end up with five different versions of an extension, all with
version number 0.1.
Another approach is to use comments on the objects saying "version
1.23". Those generally move together with the objects themselves; they
are included in pg_dump schema-only dump, for example, while the
contents of a table are not.
> The ship has sailed. Encouraging use of files and .sql buy no
> soundness, because everyone is moving towards is overlaying version
> management via pure FEBE anyway.
What is FEBE?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-01-20 22:53:45|
|Subject: Re: gistVacuumUpdate|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-01-20 22:30:06|
|Subject: Re: Group commit, revised|