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>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
Date: | 2010-12-11 20:09:19 |
Message-ID: | m2sjy4xea8.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I've been reading through the entire thread and it seems like this is
the best mail to choose to answer.
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Maybe I misread David's meaning, but I thought he was saying that
> there's no value in inventing all those control file entries in the
> first place. Just hard-wire in ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE the convention
> that the name of an upgrade script to upgrade from prior version VVV is
> EXTNAME-upgrade.VVV.sql (or any variant spelling of that you care for).
Yeah that works, as soon as VVV is the version we upgrade from.
That said, we need to find a way to lighten the process for extensions
where it's easy to have a single script to support upgrade from more
than once past release.
What about having the following keys supported in the control file:
upgrade_<version> = 'script.version.sql'
upgrade_all = 'script.sql'
Where the version here is the version you're upgrading *from* (to is
known and static when you distribute the files after all), and where
upgrade_all is applied last no matter what got applied before.
Also, do we want a subdirectory per extension to host all those files?
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2010-12-11 20:18:02 | Re: unlogged tables |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2010-12-11 19:53:27 | Re: unlogged tables |