[ warning, thread hijack ahead ] Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> I think this is a good change to pursue, and we'll likely want to do >> more similar changes in contrib. But I'm worried that what is logically >> a 10-line change will end up a 20 KiB patch every time.
> We also created a new version to add the PARALLEL SAFE markings to the > functions. In general, I believe it's better to use a new version when > we're making these kinds of changes. It is becoming clear that the current extension update mechanism is kind of brute-force for this sort of change. I have no ideas offhand about a better way to do it, but like Peter, I was dismayed by the amount of pure overhead involved in the PARALLEL SAFE updates. It's not only development overhead, either: users have to remember to run around and issue ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE for every extension they have, in every database they have it installed in. Anyone want to lay a side bet on how many users will actually do that? Given that the release notes don't currently suggest doing so, I'd be willing to put money on "none at all" :-( I wonder whether pg_upgrade ought to be changed to attempt upgrading every extension after it's completed the basic migration. Or at least offer a script containing all the needed commands. Anyway, it's not this particular patch's job to do better, but we oughta think about better ways to do it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers