On 13 October 2016 at 12:37, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> writes:
>> As we are planning to change an extension name from one name to another
>> name because of additional features that are added into this extension,
> The usual approach to that is just to increase the version number.
> Why is it necessary to change the name?
>> I just thought of adding the support of (ALTER EXTENSION name RENAME To
>> newname), this can be executed before executing the pg_upgrade to the new
>> extension name that is available in the
>> newer version.
> And if the user forgets to do that before upgrading?  Not to mention
> that the extension is mostly broken the moment its SQL name no longer
> corresponds to the on-disk control file name.  This seems like
> a non-solution.
> In general, once you've shipped something, changing its name is a huge
> pain both for you and your users.  Just say no.

I've touched on a somewhat related case when I wanted to merge two
extensions into one. I took a look and quickly punted on it as way too
messy, but I'm sure there are legitimate use cases for
splitting/merging extensions. That doesn't mean we want to carry
little-used infrastructure for it or that anyone's going to care
enough to implement anything.

Certainly my need wasn't worth doing it for, and it was a simple one.
Doing things like extracting only some parts of an extension into
another extension while maintaining correct dependencies sounds

So I'm with you. Just don't rename it.

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to