|From:||Sandro Santilli <strk(at)kbt(dot)io>|
|To:||pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
And now with the actual patch attached ... (sorry)
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 12:01:04AM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> I'm attaching an updated version of the patch. This time the patch
> is tested. Nothing changes unless the .control file for the subject
> extension doesn't have a "wildcard_upgrades = true" statement.
> When wildcard upgrades are enabled, a file with a "%" symbol as
> the "source" part of the upgrade path will match any version and
> will be used if a specific version upgrade does not exist.
> This means that in presence of the following files:
> The first one will be used for going from 3.0.0 to 3.2.0.
> This is the intention. The patch lacks automated tests and can
> probably be improved.
> For more context, a previous (non-working) version of this patch was
> submitted to commitfest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3654/
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 11:20:55AM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 04:50:20PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2022-05-27 at 17:37 -0400, Regina Obe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2022-February/029500.html
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone think this is such a horrible idea that we should abandon all
> > > > hope?
> > >
> > > I don't think this idea is fundamentally wrong, but I have two worries:
> > >
> > > 1. It would be a good idea good to make sure that there is not both
> > > "extension--%--2.0.sql" and "extension--1.0--2.0.sql" present.
> > > Otherwise the behavior might be indeterministic.
> > I'd make sure to use extension--1.0--2.0.sql in that case (more
> > specific first).
> > > 2. What if you have a "postgis--%--3.3.sql", and somebody tries to upgrade
> > > their PostGIS 1.1 installation with it? Would that work?
> > For PostGIS in particular it will NOT work as the PostGIS upgrade
> > script checks for the older version and decides if the upgrade is
> > valid or not. This is the same upgrade code used for non-extension
> > installs.
> > > Having a lower bound for a matching version might be a good idea,
> > > although I have no idea how to do that.
> > I was thinking of a broader pattern matching support, like:
> > postgis--3.%--3.3.sql
> > But it would be better to start simple and eventually if needed
> > increase the complexity ?
> > Another option could be specifying something in the control file,
> > which would also probably be a good idea to still allow some
> > extensions to use '%' in the version string (for example).
> > --strk;
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2022-09-14 22:12:09||Re: archive modules|
|Previous Message||Sandro Santilli||2022-09-14 22:01:00||Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames|