Hi,
Please find attached a new version (v10) of the patch that fixes the
reported dependencies problems and add some new regression tests to
cover them.
The patch implements the solution we discuted privately with Markus
while at the CHAR(13) conference:
- create template for extension is now
Peter,
On 07/09/2013 11:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think there is an intrinsic conflict here. You have things inside the
database and outside. When they depend on each other, it gets tricky.
Extensions were invented to copy with that. They do the job, more or
less.
I agree. And to
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
Then what happens at pg_restore time? the CREATE EXTENSION in the backup
script will suddenly install the other extension's that happen to have
the same name? I think erroring out is the only safe way here.
Extensions are commonly identified by name
Dimitri,
leaving the template vs link model aside for a moment, here are some
other issues I run into. All under the assumption that we want the link
model.
On 07/08/2013 11:49 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Please find attached to this mail version 9 of the Extension Templates
patch with fixes
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
First of all, I figured that creation of a template of a newer version
is prohibited in case an extension exists:
Ooops, that's a bug I need to fix.
I then came to think of the upgrade scripts... what do we link against
if an extension has been created
Salut Dimitri,
On 07/09/2013 12:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
Or how do you think would pg_restore fail, if you followed the mental
model of the template?
# create template for extension foo version 'x' as '';
# create extension foo;
# alter
On 7/8/13 4:20 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Let me stress that the most important value in that behavior is to be
able to pg_restore using a newer version of the extension, the one that
works with the target major version. When upgrading from 9.2 to 9.3 if
you depend on keywords that now are
On 08.07.2013 00:48, Markus Wanner wrote:
On 07/07/2013 09:51 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
The design we found to address that is
called Extension Templates and is implemented in the current patch.
I placed my concerns with the proposed implementation. It's certainly
not the only way how
On 07/08/2013 09:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 08.07.2013 00:48, Markus Wanner wrote:
On 07/07/2013 09:51 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
The design we found to address that is
called Extension Templates and is implemented in the current patch.
I placed my concerns with the proposed
On 07/08/2013 09:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I'm just now dabbling back to this thread after skipping a lot of
discussion, and I'm disappointed to see that this still seems to be
running in circles on the same basic question: What exactly is the
patch trying to accomplish.
Bypassing the
On 06/10/2013 09:43 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On 07/08/2013 09:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The concept was useful, but not something we want
to call an extension, because the distinguishing feature of an
extension is that it lives outside the database and is *not* included
in pg_dump.
On 07/08/2013 10:20 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Bypassing the file system entirely in order to install an extension. As
soon as I figure out how to, including C-coded extensions.
Do I understand correctly that you want to keep the extensions (or their
templates) out of the dump and require the
Hi,
Please find attached to this mail version 9 of the Extension Templates
patch with fixes for the review up to now.
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
I still think that we shouldn't allow creating a template for an
extension that is already installed, though. Do you have any
Hello Dimitri,
On 07/08/2013 11:49 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Please find attached to this mail version 9 of the Extension Templates
patch with fixes for the review up to now.
Thanks, cool.
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
I still think that we shouldn't allow creating a template
Salut Dimitri,
On 07/06/2013 10:30 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Yes, I did share this viewpoint over the naming of the feature, but Tom
insisted that we already have those kind of templates for text search.
I think it's a question of what mental model we want extensions to
follow. See my other
On 07/06/2013 10:30 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
I still think that we shouldn't allow creating a template for an
extension that is already installed, though. Do you have any suggestions
for a better error message?
Oh, I just realize that pg_extension_{template,control,uptmpl} are not
SHARED
On 07/07/2013 02:55 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
If you want to just upload extensions to a database via libpq..
Let's rephrase this in a (hopefully) more constructive way: I get the
impression you are trying to satisfy many different needs. Way more that
you need to scratch your own itch. To the
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
Oh, I just realize that pg_extension_{template,control,uptmpl} are not
SHARED catalogs, but you need to install the template per-database and
then need to enable it - per-database *again*. Why is that?
Because the current model is not serving us well
Hello Dimitri,
On 07/07/2013 09:51 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
Oh, I just realize that pg_extension_{template,control,uptmpl} are not
SHARED catalogs, but you need to install the template per-database and
then need to enable it - per-database *again*.
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your detailed review!
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
Initially, I was confused about what the patch is supposed to achieve.
The 'template' naming certainly contributed to that confusion. My mental
Yes, I did share this viewpoint over the naming of the feature,
Hi,
I reviewed Dimitri's work on extension templates [2]. There's some
discussion still ongoing and the patch has gone through several
revisions since its addition to the current CF. The patch has already
been marked as 'returned with feedback', and I can support that
resolution (for this CF). I
On 07/05/2013 09:05 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
The patch has already
been marked as 'returned with feedback', and I can support that
resolution (for this CF).
Oops.. I just realize it's only set to waiting on author, now. I guess
I confused the two states. Please excuse my glitch.
Dimitri, do
22 matches
Mail list logo
