> On Nov 16, 2021, at 7:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's also going to be important to think about what happens with
> extension GUCs. If somebody installs an extension, we can't ask them
> to perform a manual step in order to be able to grant privileges.
The burden isn't on the installer of an extension. As implemented, it's the
extension's installation .sql file that sets it up, and the upgrade .sql files
that make adjustments, if necessary.
> And
> if somebody then loads up a different .so for that extension, the set
> of GUCs that it provides can change without any DDL being executed.
> New GUCs could appear, and old GUCs could vanish.
Well, the same is true for functions, right? If you add, remove, or redefine
functions in the extension, you need an upgrade script that defines the new
functions, removes the old ones, changes function signatures, or whatever. The
same is true here for GUCs.
I don't think we support using a .so that is mismatched against the version of
the extension that is installed.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
