| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: updated hstore patch |
| Date: | 2009-09-21 17:52:43 |
| Message-ID: | 562134D9-7B11-4DE6-8E64-A8785AA616C2@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> That recipe doesn't actually work for cases like this. What *would*
> work is loading the module *before* restoring from your old dump,
> then relying on the CREATEs from the incoming dump to fail.
Jesus this is hacky, either way. :-(
> I believe we have already discussed the necessity for pg_upgrade to
> support this type of subterfuge. A module facility would be a lot
> better of course, but we still need something for upgrading existing
> databases that don't contain the module structure.
Yeah, it's past time for a real module facility.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-09-21 18:04:32 | Re: generic copy options |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-21 17:51:33 | Re: generic copy options |