Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 458B9F78-6C4C-464A-9888-441E6165F2BF@kineticode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having scripts \i each other as appropriate. > > This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about the > pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but without the > pg_execute_sql_file() function. So that part is internal to the backend > extension code and not available from SQL anymore. > > There's no consensus to publish a bakend \i like function. So there's > no support for this upgrade script organizing you're promoting. Unless > the consensus changes again (but a commit has been done). To be clear, consensus was not reached, by my reading. It may be that it makes sense to restore pg_execute_sql_file(), perhapsto run only in the context of ALTER EXTENSION. Just to be clear where I'm coming from, as an extension developer, I would like PostgreSQL extensions to: * Prefer convention over configuration * Not make me do more work that the computer can do Best, David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: