From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2011-02-09 15:07:42 |
Message-ID: | 87ei7hutz5.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Hm, interesting idea, but I'm afraid that pg_describe_object doesn't
> produce exactly the syntax you need.
It's very close. I've produced the previous set like that and the only
problem I had were with operator class and family objects, and with
array types. In both case a very simple replace can be used, like
replace int[] with _int and "for access method" with "using".
So you just add a CASE in the SELECT I proposed. Well, I didn't do it
because I was not sure that it would still be needed with the API you're
using.
> I had personally been thinking of generating the contrib upgrade scripts
> via search-and-replace on the existing uninstall scripts.
Maybe that would work too.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-02-09 15:16:19 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-09 14:47:37 | Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade |