Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: documentation bug - missing info about unpackaged control files for extension

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: documentation bug - missing info about unpackaged control files for extension
Date: 2012-04-15 16:48:53
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCGZT5qq9ZqookVGAiA3gAj7KfGf56udPwX1t3_79pXdw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2012/4/15 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
> On 15.04.2012 13:47, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> is somewhere documented sense of foo--unpackaged--version.sql files?
>
>
> See section 35.15.4. Extension Updates, paragraph starting with "The update
> mechanism can be used to solve an important special case: converting a
> "loose" collection of objects into an extension."
>

I understand better now.

Thank you

Pavel

> --
>  Heikki Linnakangas
>  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-04-15 17:27:06
Subject: Re: Fix PL/Python metadata when there is no result
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-04-15 16:29:39
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group