On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 14:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > When it comes to dump/reload, I'd much rather see a mechanism which uses
> > our deep understanding of the extension's objects (as database objects)
> > to implement the dump/reload than a text blob which is carried forward
> > from major version to major version and may even fail to run.
>
> Note that we're already doing that in the binary_upgrade code path.
> I agree that generalizing that approach sounds like a better idea
> than keeping a text blob around.
So does this take us fully back to Inline Extensions, or is there a
distinction that I'm missing?
I still don't see that Extension Templates are all bad: * They preserve the fact that two instances of the same
extension
(e.g. in different databases) were created from the same template. * They mirror the file-based templates, so it seems
easierto get
consistent behavior.
Regards,Jeff Davis
