Re: pg_upgade vs config - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_upgade vs config
Date
Msg-id 30432.1475432041@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgade vs config  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 10/02/2016 01:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Because pg_dump with --binary-upgrade neglects to emit
>> ALTER EXTENSION bloom ADD ACCESS METHOD bloom;
>> which it would need to do in order to make this work right.  The other
>> small problem is that there is no such ALTER EXTENSION syntax in the
>> backend.  This is a rather major oversight in the patch that added DDL
>> support for access methods, if you ask me.

> I agree.

Remarkably enough, it seems that only a gram.y production need be added
--- the only other code involved is objectaddress.c, which does seem
to have gotten extended sufficiently.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgade vs config
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgade vs config