| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
| Date: | 2013-12-04 07:51:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1386143487.19125.203.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 14:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > When it comes to dump/reload, I'd much rather see a mechanism which uses
> > our deep understanding of the extension's objects (as database objects)
> > to implement the dump/reload than a text blob which is carried forward
> > from major version to major version and may even fail to run.
>
> Note that we're already doing that in the binary_upgrade code path.
> I agree that generalizing that approach sounds like a better idea
> than keeping a text blob around.
So does this take us fully back to Inline Extensions, or is there a
distinction that I'm missing?
I still don't see that Extension Templates are all bad:
* They preserve the fact that two instances of the same extension
(e.g. in different databases) were created from the same template.
* They mirror the file-based templates, so it seems easier to get
consistent behavior.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-12-04 08:00:02 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-12-04 07:39:23 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |