Re: search_path vs extensions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: search_path vs extensions
Date
Msg-id A0F213CC-4839-44A3-8D3B-A13FEA6B2FF1@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: search_path vs extensions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On May 28, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Is that really a complete answer? How do we deal with upgrading an
>> extension to a more recent version? What happens to objects in the
>> database which depend on objects from the extension?
>
> Well, if it's only a code change then you install a newer version of  
> the
> .so and you're done.  If the extension upgrade requires altering any
> SQL-level properties of the module's objects then I'd expect the
> extension author to provide a SQL script to do that.

It would be convenient for me a module/extension author not to have to  
write upgrade scripts for every version of my module/extension.

> Obviously there is value in being able to do things like add new  
> objects
> to an existing module, but we hashed out the mechanisms for that long
> ago.  IIRC the proposed syntax was along the lines of
>
>     CREATE EXTENSION foo;
>
>     BEGIN EXTENSION foo;
>
>     ... anything created here is automatically tagged as belonging
>         to foo ...
>
>     END EXTENSION foo;

I like it.

Best,

David


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type
Next
From: Andy Colson
Date:
Subject: Re: sun blade 1000 donation