Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> I'm not convinced we really need to solve that problem, but one way to
> solve it 'cleanly' would be to seperate the two types of extensions,
> perhaps by calling them by different names or inventing a namespace for
> extensions.
My understanding is that this line of thoughts gave us Extension
Templates which are templates, not extensions.
> I think we're falling into the trap of thinking that whatever this
> user-installable-collection-of-objects thing is, it must be considered
> PG 'extensions'. While I agree that some of the things we do for
> extensions should also be done with these collections of objects (eg:
> having versions and other meta-data for them), I'm starting to think
> that's the "small" side of this whole equation and duplicating that
> meta-data store for these collections would be easier than trying to
> shoehorn them into the existing notion of 'extensions'.
My main question when thinking that way is:
- how to update from a version to another one?
The point about extensions is that we separate the author who maintains
the upgrade scripts from the DBA who operates the upgrades. It seems to
me it's important to keep that property.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
