| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
| Date: | 2011-09-22 18:14:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4E7B34BB02000025000415EF@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hmm, if there's a citext--unpackaged--1.0.sql and also
>> citext--1.0--1.1.sql, is it really necessary to have
>> citext--unpackaged--1.1.sql? Shouldn't the upgrade facility be
>> able to just run both scripts?
>
> No, because if 1.1 was installed on 8.4, you'd need the commands
> to move all its functions into the extension, not re-create them.
Shouldn't a version installed on 8.4 be installed as "unpackaged"?
Doesn't citext--unpackaged--1.0.sql contain the commands to move all
its functions into the extension?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-09-22 18:16:37 | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-09-22 18:09:05 | Re: citext operator precedence fix |