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

Re: Inline Extension

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inline Extension
Date: 2012-01-19 20:54:53
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I'm with Heikki on not believing that this is a good idea.  If you are
>> trying to do careful versioning of a set of object definitions, you want
>> to stick the things in a file, you don't want them just flying by in
>> submitted SQL.
> I'm trying to open the extension facilities (versions being the first of
> them, think \dx) to application PL code, and to hosted environments
> where you're not granted access to the server's file system.

I guess the question is: for what purpose?

As you recognized in your original email, if the extension is inline,
then the objects will need to be dumped, because a simple CREATE
EXTENSION command is bound to fail.  But my understanding was that a
major part of the reason - if not the entire reason - was to get
pg_dump to emit CREATE EXTENSION bob instead of the component SQL
commands.  If we take that away, what's the remaining benefit of
packaging those objects inside an extension instead of just dumping
them "loose" into the database?

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-01-19 21:05:27
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and relkind filtering
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2012-01-19 20:54:24
Subject: Re: WIP: index support for regexp search

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group