From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL objects UNITs |
Date: | 2013-12-22 03:27:36 |
Message-ID: | 23579.1387682856@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>>> That said, I'm starting to wonder about a few
>>> different options that might be handy- having the extension be dumpable
>>> (or maybe an option to pg_dump to dump them from the DB, or not), and
>>> perhaps an option to have the version # included in the dump (or an
>>> option to exclude it, such as when run by pg_upgrade..?). Perhaps
>>> similar things for pg_restore.
>>>
>>> In any case, this is certainly the way I had been hoping the discussion
>>> would go..
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18778.1354753982@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Fortunately, nobody's proposing that exact design, and I think there
> are more recent emails where Tom expressed at least some support for
> the idea of installing an extension purely via SQL, and in fact backed
> the idea of being able to dump-and-restore the extension members as
> superior to storing blobs in the catalog.
AFAICT, what I was complaining about there was the idea that the
per-extension behavior had to be specified via switches to pg_dump
in order to get a valid dump. That doesn't seem too workable ---
you think your nightly backup script will know that? But the idea that
it's an alterable property of each extension, *stored in the database*,
does not fall foul of that complaint.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-12-22 07:36:05 | Re: ISN extension bug? (with patch) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-22 02:11:47 | Re: SQL objects UNITs |