Re: [HACKERS] ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;

2010-12-10 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Dec 10, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: This idea is not exactly free of disadvantages. 1. It assumes that the underlying .so supports not only the current version, but every intermediate version of the SQL objects. For example, say the previously installed version was 1.10, and we

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;

2010-12-10 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, I'd much rather expect the extension author to explicitly support each pair of (from, to) version numbers that he's prepared to deal with. If he can build those update scripts as simple concatenations of single-step scripts, great; but let's not hard-wire the assumption that that

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;

2010-12-10 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, I don't believe that extension SQL scripts should rely on DO blocks. There is no requirement that plpgsql be installed, and we're not going to create one as part of this feature. What this means is that the design you offer above doesn't work at all, since it fundamentally assumes that

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;

2010-12-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: I don't believe that extension SQL scripts should rely on DO blocks. There is no requirement that plpgsql be installed, and we're not going to create one as part of this feature.  What this means is that the design you offer

<    1   2   3