Re: Dumping an Extension's Script

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Dumping an Extension's Script
Date: 2012-12-05 22:19:11
Message-ID: 20121205221911.GI4673@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine escribió:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

> > Well, there's certainly a point, because IIUC Dimitri's patch dumps
> > the file into the pg_dump output no matter whether the file originally
> > came from an SQL command or the filesystem. IMHO, anyone who thinks
> > that isn't going to break things rather badly isn't thinking hard
> > enough.
>
> Only if you ask for it using --extension-script. The default behaviour
> didn't change, whether you decide to install your extension from the
> file system or the PostgreSQL port.

What happens on a normal pg_dump of the complete database? For
extensions that were installed using strings instead of files, do I get
a string back? Because if not, the restore is clearly going to fail
anyway.

I mean, clearly the user doesn't want to list the extensions, figure
which ones were installed by strings, and then do pg_dump
--extension-script on them.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-12-05 22:21:16 Re: ALTER TABLE ... NOREWRITE option
Previous Message Andres Freund 2012-12-05 22:19:01 Re: Fwd: question on foreign key lock