On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 06:59:32PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> > If I restore a dump into another instance, I need to upgrade all my
> > extensions to that installations's versions, no?  That's not particular
> > to pg_upgrade.
> No, it's an optional step.  If we did the upgrade by default, it would
> greatly increase the chance of something failing.  For example,
> suppose the upgrade does a DROP and then CREATE of a function whose
> signature has changed.  If there's anything that depends on that
> function, this will fail.  But if we don't do it, there's no actual
> problem: the shared library is supposed to be prepared to cope with
> people still using the old SQL definition.  It is probably desirable
> to update where possible to gain access to new features, etc., but it
> shouldn't be required.
> I do think there might be some value in a tool that looked for old
> extensions and tried to update them, but I'm not sure it should be
> pg_dump.

Is pg_upgrade the right place for an extension upgrade script?  When
pg_upgrade started creating an incremental-analyze script, people
thought it should be more generic so it was moved to vacuumdb
--analyze-in-stages.  Seems we should do the same thing for the
extension upgrade script.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

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

Reply via email to