Re: REVIEW: Extensions support for pg_dump

On 01/18/2011 01:03 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> I'd appreciate a list of yet-to-fix items. What I have is the
> search_path issue where CREATE EXTENSION foo; can leave it changed for
> the current session, I intend to fix that later today.
>
> Other than that, I have no further already agreed on code fix to make.
> What's your list?
There is only documentation fixes, and I am not sure if even those are
agreed to be necessary. It might be good if the documentation contained:

- A warning that you need to have the files for your extensions
readily available to be able to restore from a dump. This might be
obvious, but better safe than sorry...
- A warning that you will be restored to the extension's version if
you ALTER or CREATE OR REPLACE a function.

From the current documentation, it is maybe too easy to miss these
risks. I am seeing this from non-experienced user's angle, and thus see
these as potential foot guns.

Other than that, I don't think there is anything more. I am a little
nervous of restoring to extension's version of a function when the
function has been CREATE OR REPLACEd, but that might be just me over
thinking this. Also, from the previous posts, there is just the control
file naming issue, and the issue of load order if two extensions contain
similarly named and signatured functions. But these were agreed to be
issues not needing any further work.

Now, I need help what to do next. Should I leave the status as Needs
Review as the pg_dump part is almost completely non-reviewed? And then
attach this thread as a comment? Or as a review?

- Anssi