On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having
scripts \i each other as appropriate.
This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
There's no consensus to publish a bakend \i like function. So there's
no support for this upgrade script organizing you're promoting. Unless
the consensus changes again (but a commit has been done).
My understanding of the consensus is that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
My understanding of the consensus is that it wasn't felt necessary for
the purpose for which it was proposed. I think it could be
re-proposed with a different argument and very possibly accepted.
Sure. I'd still prefer us to adopt the solution I've
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
Just so long as you're aware that you might get more challenges on this going
forward.
Sure, thanks for the reminder. That said I also remember the reaction
when I used to scan the SHARE/contrib directory to find the extension
control file having
On Jan 4, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
Just so long as you're aware that you might get more challenges on this
going forward.
Sure, thanks for the reminder. That said I also remember the reaction
when I used to scan the
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having
scripts \i each other as appropriate.
This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about the
pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but without the
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having
scripts \i each other as appropriate.
This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about the
pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but without
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
* Prefer convention over configuration
The previous idea about the convention is not flying well with the very
recent proposal of ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE TO VERSION ..., because
it would certainly require that the extension's name include its
On Jan 4, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
* Prefer convention over configuration
The previous idea about the convention is not flying well with the very
recent proposal of ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE TO VERSION ..., because
it would
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
I thought we were going to try to avoid having entries for upgrades in
the control file.
Not what I have understood.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01014.php
On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Not what I have understood.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01014.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01045.php
AS there was no answer, the meaning for me is that it was ok to
proceed.
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
The fact that the last two messages in the thread say something else
does not mean that they represent the consensus.
Yeah, but as I'm the one writing the code, I gave myself more than one
vote. And did consider the alternatives but didn't like them
On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
The fact that the last two messages in the thread say something else
does not mean that they represent the consensus.
Yeah, but as I'm the one writing the code, I gave myself more than one
13 matches
Mail list logo
