From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE patch v1 |
Date: | 2011-01-05 19:15:47 |
Message-ID: | m2d3obkvq4.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> The syntax by itself does nothing, but the underlying capability gives
> users:
Ok, now I understand that the syntax you proposed was a shortcut for an
I-want-it-all request :)
> - The ability to have versions of software on different databases on
> the same system.
>
> - The ability to do deterministic upgrades, rather than just, "upgrade
> me to the latest, which may be buggy and/or slow things down to
> avoid a problem I know I don't have."
Both depends on a filesystem organization rework.
> I am not saying that this is a show-stopper. I *am* saying that
> multiple concurrent versions and deterministic upgrades are common
> enough requests that you shouldn't do things that would prevent those
> in the future.
Would it be useful to have the syntax support in 9.1 already, but which
would only check that the asked-of new version (and current version) are
the one currently available (and installed), and ERROR out otherwise?
I think that syntax-and-check is still doable for 9.1, if there's a will
to get there.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-05 19:27:10 | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-05 19:15:28 | Re: making an unlogged table logged |