On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes: >> On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> (I'm not wedded to the phrase "FROM OLD" in particular, but it does >>> reuse already existing keywords. Also, maybe it'd be better to reserve >>> a version string such as "old" or "bootstrap", so that the bootstrap >>> script could be called something more legible like foo-bootstrap-1.0.sql.) > >> Well, it's not really a bootstrap, is it? FROM OLD is okay, though not >> great. FROM BEFORE would be better. Or IMPLICIT? (It was implicitly an >> extension before.) Or, hey, FROM NOTHING! :-) > > Hmm, you're right. The word bootstrap implies that we're starting from > nothing, which is exactly what we're *not* doing (starting from nothing > is the easy "clean install" case). By the same token, FROM NOTHING > isn't the right phrase either. An accurate description would be > something like FROM UNPACKAGED OBJECTS, but I'm not seriously proposing > that ...
Well, you're bootstrapping the extension mechanism. > Other ideas anyone? I still think you might be over-designing this. Upgrading from the pre-extension world doesn't need to be elegant; it just has to work. And you can do that yourself, with the proposed infrastructure: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg00911.php -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
