[ 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to