| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| Date: | 2010-12-11 21:35:24 |
| Message-ID: | 7D03324B-AC7E-4084-9EF9-D4BC0D21AB55@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 11, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Yeah that works, as soon as VVV is the version we upgrade from.
>
> That said, we need to find a way to lighten the process for extensions
> where it's easy to have a single script to support upgrade from more
> than once past release.
>
> What about having the following keys supported in the control file:
>
> upgrade_<version> = 'script.version.sql'
> upgrade_all = 'script.sql'
Why not just use an upgrade script naming convention? Think: Convention over configuration.
> Where the version here is the version you're upgrading *from* (to is
> known and static when you distribute the files after all), and where
> upgrade_all is applied last no matter what got applied before.
>
> Also, do we want a subdirectory per extension to host all those files?
How are things currently arranged?
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2010-12-11 21:36:59 | Re: would hw acceleration help postgres (databases in general) ? |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-12-11 21:30:54 | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |