| 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>, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
| Date: | 2011-02-11 17:04:04 |
| Message-ID: | m2ei7ebj0b.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> 1. If you pick the wrong FROM version, the upgrade script will almost
>>> certainly fail, because the objects won't exist or won't be in the state
>>> it expects (ie, not already members of the extension).
> IIRC, the current behavior is that C.O.R.F. on an existing function
> preserves the function's existing extension membership, if any.
Right. But it does not catch the case when you CORF on a function that
is not already into the extension. I don't see how to distinguish that
from adding a new function into it at upgrade time. So I'm having a
hard time understanding what you meant in your point above.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-11 17:06:28 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-11 17:03:31 | Re: Range Types: << >> -|- ops vs empty range |