| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why two dashes in extension load files |
| Date: | 2011-02-15 04:25:23 |
| Message-ID: | 70304292-736D-4CEF-9121-CE58023B5FEB@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but the truth is that the extension name, at least, is known from the control file.
>
> Yeah, I think it's true in the current code base that we always know the
> extension name we are interested in. However, that's no protection if
> we allow extensions to contain the separator substring. Consider
> foo--bar--baz.sql
> Is this an update script for foo (from version bar to version baz),
> or is it an install script for some other extension named foo--bar?
>
> Also, I think it'd be better if we didn't assume that we will always
> know the extension name when trying to make sense of a script name.
> That's the sort of assumption that will bite you on the rear eventually.
Works for me.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-15 04:31:08 | Re: ALTER TYPE 2: skip already-provable no-work rewrites |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-15 04:18:52 | Re: why two dashes in extension load files |