Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sandro Santilli
Subject Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
Date
Msg-id 20230308123207.cbvozwyicy6gbbxu@c19
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:13:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> What I am maintaining is that no extension author is actually going
> to write such a script, indeed they probably won't trouble to write
> any downgrade-like actions at all.  Which makes the proposed design
> mostly a foot-gun.

What I'm maintaining is that such authors should be warned about
the risk, and discouraged from installing any wildcard-containing
script UNLESS they deal with downgrade protection.

PostGIS does deal with that kind of protection (yes, could be helped
somehow in doing that by PostgreSQL).

> I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of trying to support multiple upgrade
> paths in one script.  I just don't like this particular design for that,
> because it requires the extension author to make promises that nobody
> is actually going to deliver on.

Would you be ok with a stricter pattern matching ? Something like:

  postgis--3.3.%--3.3.ANY.sql
  postgis--3.3.ANY--3.4.0.sql

Would that be easier to promise something about ?

--strk;



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sandro Santilli
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions