Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Inline Extension

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inline Extension
Date: 2012-01-20 22:48:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 21.01.2012 00:00, Daniel Farina wrote:
> I think this is somewhat rube-goldberg-esque, and denies non-superuser
> roles the ability to get more version management of schema and
> operators.  As-is many organizations are submitting "migrations" via
> plain SQL that include committing to a version management table that
> is maintained by convention, and as-is that is considered a modern-day
> best-practice.

Even if you give the version number in the CREATE EXTENSION command, 
it's by convention that people actually maintain a sane versioning 
policy. If people don't take version management seriously, you will 
quickly end up with five different versions of an extension, all with 
version number 0.1.

Another approach is to use comments on the objects saying "version 
1.23". Those generally move together with the objects themselves; they 
are included in pg_dump schema-only dump, for example, while the 
contents of a table are not.

> The ship has sailed.  Encouraging use of files and .sql buy no
> soundness, because everyone is moving towards is overlaying version
> management via pure FEBE anyway.

What is FEBE?

   Heikki Linnakangas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2012-01-20 22:53:45
Subject: Re: gistVacuumUpdate
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2012-01-20 22:30:06
Subject: Re: Group commit, revised

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group