Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades
Date
Msg-id CABUevEzV4E3xcn825PMMpuyQAGE2syDRYTNpLW0x5dN06aATWw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 4/10/17 11:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> After you've run pg_upgrade, you have to loop through all your databases
> and do an "ALTER EXTENSION abc UPDATE" once for each extension.
>
> Is there a reason we shouldn't have pg_upgrade emit a script that does
> this, similar to how it emits a script to run ANALYZE?

Shouldn't pg_dump do this, and perhaps by default? 

If I restore a dump into another instance, I need to upgrade all my
extensions to that installations's versions, no?  That's not particular
to pg_upgrade.


Sure, there's an argument to be made for that.  But pg_dump (or in this case, it would more be pg_restore I guess) also doesn't run ANALYZE or generate a script to do that, does it? ISTM that we have already decided that pg_upgrade has a different requirement on providing those things, whereas pg_dump/pg_restore is more of a low-level tool where people have to figure more things out themselves.


--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades