st 8. 3. 2023 v 20:17 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> This is a bad idea. How will you do extension upgrades, if the new .so >> won't run till you apply the extension upgrade script but the old .so >> malfunctions as soon as you do?
> Which upgrade paths allow you to have an old .so with a new version > number? I didn't realize that was an issue.
More usually, it's the other way around: new .so but SQL objects not upgraded yet. That's typical in a pg_upgrade to a new major version, where the new installation may have a newer extension .so than the old one did. You can't run ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE if the new .so refuses to load with the old SQL objects ... which AFAICS is exactly what Pavel's sketch would do.
If you have old .so and new SQL objects, it's likely that at least some of those new objects won't work --- but it's good to not break any more functionality than you have to. That's why I suggest managing the compatibility checks on a per-function level rather than trying to have an overall version check.
There is agreement - I call this check from functions.
