Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3
Date: 2011-02-11 20:15:55
Message-ID: 18774.1297455355@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> However, we're going to have to make a choice for the contrib modules,
>> and I'll bet lunch that most people will follow whatever precedent we
>> set with those. I was thinking about using either "old" or "unpackaged".
>> Thoughts?

> Will we have to provide different upgrade scripts for different past
> major versions of PostgreSQL? If so, I would say "9.0" or "8.4" would
> be better names. hstore at least is an example that would need this
> treatment I guess.

I don't foresee us bothering with that. We will only be trying to
upgrade installations that got to 9.1 legitimately.

I should also make clear that I intend to start out all the contrib
modules at version 1.0. *NOT* 9.1. These things are going to get
version number bumps only when the contents of their install scripts
change, not whenever the surrounding database changes version. If we
number them at 9.1 to start with, it will just promote confusion.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-02-11 20:18:11 Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-11 20:14:41 Re: Range Types: empty ranges