On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Renzo Kottmann <rkottman(at)mpi-bremen(dot)de> wrote:
> On 07/18/2011 05:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Sandro Santilli <strk(at)keybit(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Trying to exclude items from dumps of postgis-enabled databases
>>> we use pg_restore -l output and strip what we think belong to PostGIS.
>>> In doing so, Renzo found that for OPERATOR there are not enough
>>> informations to unambiguosly find it being part of PostGIS (see
>>> included mail snippet).
>>> Do you think this could be improved on the pg_restore side ?
>> In 9.1, we've added the concept of EXTENSIONs. I'm not sure whether
>> PostGIS is planning to take advantage of this mechanism, but it's
>> designed to solve exactly this problem.
> The extensions concept will be a big step forward, no doubt.
> I just do not think that it solves the aforementioned problem. AFAIK
> the extension system will be available for 9.1 only. Then it would not
> be available for all kinds of dump/restore scenarios <9.1 (in my case
> from 8.4 to 9.0).
Yeah, that's a problem. The mechanism does include some magic that's
supposed to help deal with this. The idea is -- first, you upgrade to
9.1 -- next, you say something like CREATE EXTENSION ename FROM
unpackaged -- finally, you upgrade the extension using ALTER EXTENSION
UPDATE. However, I'm not sure whether PostGIS is planning to support
this mechanism, or whether it meets their needs.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Kurt Mielke||Date: 2011-07-27 20:15:30|
|Subject: BUG #6133: -lpq frees unallocated memory on exit|
|Previous:||From: John R Pierce||Date: 2011-07-27 18:30:10|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6132: Cannot install rpm files|