Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade
Date
Msg-id 87ei7hutz5.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Hm, interesting idea, but I'm afraid that pg_describe_object doesn't
> produce exactly the syntax you need.

It's very close.  I've produced the previous set like that and the only
problem I had were with operator class and family objects, and with
array types.  In both case a very simple replace can be used, like
replace int[] with _int and "for access method" with "using".

So you just add a CASE in the SELECT I proposed.  Well, I didn't do it
because I was not sure that it would still be needed with the API you're
using.

> I had personally been thinking of generating the contrib upgrade scripts
> via search-and-replace on the existing uninstall scripts.

Maybe that would work too.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14