Re: search_path vs extensions
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: search_path vs extensions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A0F213CC-4839-44A3-8D3B-A13FEA6B2FF1@kineticode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: search_path vs extensions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On May 28, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Is that really a complete answer? How do we deal with upgrading an >> extension to a more recent version? What happens to objects in the >> database which depend on objects from the extension? > > Well, if it's only a code change then you install a newer version of > the > .so and you're done. If the extension upgrade requires altering any > SQL-level properties of the module's objects then I'd expect the > extension author to provide a SQL script to do that. It would be convenient for me a module/extension author not to have to write upgrade scripts for every version of my module/extension. > Obviously there is value in being able to do things like add new > objects > to an existing module, but we hashed out the mechanisms for that long > ago. IIRC the proposed syntax was along the lines of > > CREATE EXTENSION foo; > > BEGIN EXTENSION foo; > > ... anything created here is automatically tagged as belonging > to foo ... > > END EXTENSION foo; I like it. Best, David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: