On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > It seems that we've mostly got consensus on the ideas of having a separate > script file for each installable version of an extension, and for each > basic version-upgrade action, with version numbers embedded in the file > names so that the control files don't need to be involved in identifying > what's what. And the core system is expected to be able to figure out how > to chain upgrade scripts together when necessary. Therefore, I'm now > ready to start kibitzing on syntax details :-)
Damn, I thought you were going to get rid of the control file there for a sec (in favor of Makefile variables). ;-P > First off, I don't much care for the name "CREATE WRAPPER EXTENSION". > WRAPPER is a misnomer in this case --- it's not wrapping anything. > I think Dimitri stated that he chose WRAPPER just because it was an > already existing keyword, but that isn't much of an excuse. What's the WRAPPER bit for? I've forgotten. > One minor objection to this idea is that "foo--1.0.sql" looks more like a > typo than anything else. We could alternatively decide that the special > reserved version name is '0', so that bootstrap script names look like > "foo-0-1.0.sql". But if you don't want to have any built-in assumptions > about what version names mean, you might not like that idea. I'm fine with either of these. "foo-0-1.0.sql" might lead to fewer questions being asked. But I otherwise have no preference. > Third, I'm also not thrilled with the syntax "ALTER EXTENSION foo > UPGRADE". UPGRADE isn't an existing keyword (note that VERSION is). > And I don't see any strong reason to assume that the version change > is an "upgrade". Authors might well choose to support sidegrades or > downgrades, especially with experimental modules. I suggest either > > ALTER EXTENSION foo UPDATE [ TO 'version' ] > > ALTER EXTENSION foo VERSION [ 'version' ] > > the main excuse for the latter being that it's closer to the comparable > syntax in CREATE EXTENSION. > > OK, that's enough bikeshedding for today ... The former reads much more clearly to me. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
