Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> (I was vaguely imagining that it could share most of the COMMENT
>> infrastructure --- but haven't looked yet).

> Well the code footprint is quite small already.

Having now looked at it a bit closer, I think the syntax choice is a
complete wash from an implementation standpoint: either way, we'll have
a list of bison productions that build AlterObjectExtensionStmt nodes,
and it goes through the same way after that. I do think that the
implementation will be a lot more compact if it relies on the COMMENT
infrastructure (ie, get_object_address), but that's an independent
choice.

So really it boils down to which syntax seems more natural and/or easier
to document. As I said, I think a centralized ALTER EXTENSION syntax
has some advantages from the documentation standpoint; but that's not a
terribly strong argument, especially given that Dimitri has already done
a patch to document things the other way.

Preferences anyone?

regards, tom lane