| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allow_system_table_mods stuff |
| Date: | 2019-06-21 20:16:19 |
| Message-ID: | 371ecfe3-7ab2-07e3-2e1a-c45a7bdbfb54@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/21/19 3:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> When it comes to cases that fundamentally are one-off's and that we
> don't think really deserve a proper DDL command, then I'd say we make
> the extensions set the flag. At least then it's clear "hey, we had to
> do something really grotty here, maybe don't copy this into your new
> extension, or don't use this method." We should also un-set the flag
> after.
I'd be leery of collateral damage from that to extension update scripts
in extension releases currently in the wild.
Maybe there should be a new extension control file setting
needs_system_table_mods = (boolean)
which means what it says if it's there, but if an ALTER EXTENSION
UPDATE sees a control file that lacks the setting, assume true
(with a warning?).
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-21 20:37:16 | Re: allow_system_table_mods stuff |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2019-06-21 20:03:41 | Re: File descriptors inherited by restore_command |