Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames

From: 'Sandro Santilli' <strk(at)kbt(dot)io>
To: Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>
Cc: 'Christoph Berg' <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 'Laurenz Albe' <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Paul Ramsey' <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
Date: 2022-11-16 23:09:33
Message-ID: 20221116230933.6ynksku66i436ozm@c19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 11:46:50PM -0500, Regina Obe wrote:
> > Re: Sandro Santilli
> > > I'm attaching an updated version of the patch. This time the patch is
> > > tested. Nothing changes unless the .control file for the subject
> > > extension doesn't have a "wildcard_upgrades = true" statement.
> > >
> > > When wildcard upgrades are enabled, a file with a "%" symbol as the
> > > "source" part of the upgrade path will match any version and
> >
> > Fwiw I believe wildcard_upgrades isn't necessary in the .control file.
> > If there are no % files, none would be used anyway, and if there are, it's
> clear
> > it's meant as wildcard since % won't appear in any remotely sane version
> > number.
> I also like the idea of skipping the wildcard_upgrades syntax.
> Then there is no need to have a conditional control file for PG 16 vs. older
> versions.

Here we go. Attached a version of the patch with no
"wildcard_upgrades" controlling it.


Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Allow-wildcard-in-extension-upgrade-paths.patch text/x-diff 8.3 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Regina Obe 2022-11-16 23:16:11 RE: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2022-11-16 22:31:57 Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver