Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade

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
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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