Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately
Date: 2013-06-01 15:16:25
Message-ID: 20130601151625.GB6732@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-06-01 11:07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> > On 05/31/2013 08:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Changing SQL syntax in the back-branches isn't normally something
> >> we do, but I confess I don't see any real reason not to do it in
> >> this case.
>
> > That was part of my hesitation, but I don't see any better way to fix
> > existing installations and this is pretty well self-contained. Any
> > other opinions out there?
>
> I don't like this approach much.
>
> 1. It does nothing to fix the issue in *existing* databases, which
> won't have pg_depend entries like this.

Well, you can now write an extension upgrade script that adds the
missing dependencies. To me that sounds better than letting it fiddle
with pg_depend.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2013-06-01 15:23:10 Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-06-01 15:14:27 Re: detecting binary backup in progress