Re: [BUGS] *.sql contrib files contain unresolvable MODULE_PATHNAME

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL <Pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] *.sql contrib files contain unresolvable MODULE_PATHNAME
Date: 2011-10-12 18:39:45
Message-ID: 4E95DEF1.6010603@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On 10/12/2011 02:21 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 19:36, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>> regression=# \i ~/postgres/share/extension/cube--1.0.sql
>> Use "CREATE EXTENSION cube" to load this file.
>> regression=#
>>
>> which is about as good as one could hope for.
> Looks great to me.

Yes, me too.

> I guess the failure scenario is if someone has an extension from 9.1.2
> and tries to load it into 9.1.1 or earlier, in which case they will
> get a syntax error or somehing when trying to run the CREATE EXTENSION
> command, right? I doubt that's something worth dealing with - it's a
> lot less likely to happen.
>

As long as we are going to apply it for 9.1 and not wait for 9.2 I don't
think there will be much problem. I think this is one of the rare cases
where we should apply a change to the stable release.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-10-12 18:52:54 Re: [BUGS] *.sql contrib files contain unresolvable MODULE_PATHNAME
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-10-12 18:29:17 Re: [BUGS] *.sql contrib files contain unresolvable MODULE_PATHNAME

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-10-12 18:49:32 Re: pg_comments (was: Allow \dd to show constraint comments)
Previous Message Garick Hamlin 2011-10-12 18:33:46 Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans