| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade ability to create extension from scripts |
| Date: | 2025-05-17 18:09:55 |
| Message-ID: | 183c96bd-9c99-457f-abc3-22da0c91e34c@proxel.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/17/25 7:58 PM, Regina Obe wrote:
> Yah that is why I was suggesting as a switch not a default option. I think the default option works fine in most cases.
> But I was thinking does pg_upgrade rely at all on OIDs? I guess that might make this not doable. I wasn't sure if that is part of the reason why it has to use
> the objects of the extension as they existed in the db.
It relies on OIDs which actually does make this a non-starter. Array
types for example include the type's OID in the data. So I cannot see
how this even can be made work without possibly tons of ugly hacks.
pg_upgrade does enough clever hacks.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shaik Mohammad Mujeeb | 2025-05-17 18:35:56 | Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Regina Obe | 2025-05-17 17:58:37 | RE: pg_upgrade ability to create extension from scripts |