Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwakMtCdrSAdPK0jUWGExq6vqdykvChPj9Gpvj03WbnHfA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, May  7, 2015 at 04:19:52PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Just a reality check but this will break a pg_upgrade, and will not be
>> detected by --check.

> Actually, pg_upgrade might be OK because the views would be recreated
> with the new functions already installed.

pg_upgrade is okay in any case because it dumps and reloads the current
extension's components.  Doesn't matter whether there's another version
that is not compatible.


​For clarity - which one is "current" in this context?

1. The existing database's (previous extension version)
2. The target database's (current default extension version in the new PostgreSQL version)


​The answer has to be #2 since the version in the existing database no longer exists in the new PostgreSQL version.

David J.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations