Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers
Date: 2011-01-03 19:59:16
Message-ID: E4E469B5-90AC-4285-B93F-A41CF50D1EF7@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

> Not what I have understood.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01014.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01045.php
>
> AS there was no answer, the meaning for me is that it was ok to
> proceed. On this list people agreeing often remain silent.

There were several of us who were not silent.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg00804.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg00796.php

The fact that the last two messages in the thread say something else does not mean that they represent the consensus.

>>> Note that we always need to support the placeholder here, because of
>>> course following dependencies at this point isn't possible.
>>
>> I thought placeholders were going away, too. Did I lose track?
>
> Oh, dear, yes :) See the documentation for the relocatable parameter.
> We know handle two kinds of extensions, some of them you can't offer
> better than placeholders to allow users to define the schema where they
> will land. Also, at upgrade time, I don't see any other way to solve
> the problem. Do you?
>
> http://pgsql.tapoueh.org/extensions/doc/html/extend-extension.html

Right, I forgot about the relocatable parameter. I kind of expect that most extensions *would* be relocatable, though. Maybe it should be expected to be true if it's not present? Or perhaps require non-relocatable extensions to have a "fixed_schema" control key or something? Either will work, just trying to find the likely convention to avoid configuration in most cases. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and most extensions wouldn't be relocatable?

> Yeah. Before extension existed, it has always been working like that,
> our users already depend on such a behavior, nothing new here. I just
> don't see how extension could solve that is all I'm saying.

Fair enough.

>> The new .so should not be installed until the upgrade is been run.
>
> Nice statement. How do you make that happen?

Nope.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2011-01-03 19:59:30 Re: back branches vs. VS 2008
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2011-01-03 19:57:58 Re: Extension upgrade, patch v0: debug help needed