Re: [GENERAL] Dropping extensions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Dropping extensions
Date: 2011-07-23 15:08:52
Message-ID: 2961.1311433732@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> In postgres 9.1 I have created 2 extensions, veil and veil_demo. When I
> install veil, it creates a default (not very useful) version of a
> function: veil_init().

> When I create veil_demo, it replaces this version of the function with
> it's own (useful) version.

> If I drop the extension veil_demo, I am left with the veil_demo version
> of veil_init().

> Is this a feature or a bug? Is there a work-around?

Hmm. I don't think we have any code in there to prohibit the same
object from being made a member of two different extensions ... but this
example suggests that maybe we had better check that.

In general, though, it is not intended that extension creation scripts
use CREATE OR REPLACE, which I gather you must be doing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Godofredo Contreras 2011-07-23 15:39:52 Question about uuid_generate_v3
Previous Message Pablo Romero Abiti 2011-07-23 14:49:43 Re : Update columns in same table from update trigger?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2011-07-23 15:49:37 XPATH vs. server_encoding != UTF-8
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-07-23 15:05:12 Re: Questions and experiences writing a Foreign Data Wrapper