On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 07:37:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 06:36:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I feel like all of these are leaning heavily on users to get it right,
>
> > What do you have in mind? I see things for the pg_upgrade implementation to
> > get right, but I don't see things for pg_upgrade users to get right.
>
> Well, yeah, if you are willing to put pg_upgrade in charge of
> executing ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE, then that would be a reasonably
> omission-proof path. But we have always intended the pg_upgrade
> process to *not* auto-update extensions, so I'm concerned about
> the potential side-effects of drilling a hole in that policy.
> As an example: even if we ensure that pg_trgm 1.6 to 1.7 is totally
> transparent except for this fix, what happens if the user's old
> database is still on some pre-1.6 version? Is it okay to force an
> update that includes feature upgrades?
Those are disadvantages of some of the options. I think it could be okay to
inject the mandatory upgrade here or just tell the user to update to 1.7
before attempting the upgrade (if not at 1.7, pg_upgrade would fail with an
error message to that effect). Your counterproposal avoids the issue, and I'm
good with that design.
