| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
| Date: | 2011-02-11 16:46:17 |
| Message-ID: | 29977.1297442777@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Is there a test somewhere that when CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
> runs from an extension's script at upgrade, the function must
> already be attached to the extension if it exists in the system?
> Ditto for views etc?
IIRC, the current behavior is that C.O.R.F. on an existing function
preserves the function's existing extension membership, if any.
It doesn't matter whether you are doing it from an extension script
or not. I'm not really eager to change that, and I doubt it would
make any difference anyway to the use-case under consideration ---
if the 1.0-to-1.1 script is adding a function, it's unlikely the
function existed pre-1.0 ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-02-11 16:46:47 | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-02-11 16:45:13 | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |