|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
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
> 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.
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
|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|