| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
| Date: | 2013-11-30 23:11:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAOuzzgpVwR3y3RY+RgDHQU2R0ddgtA1b4QyZ-u_+4VhPLY8BoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri,
On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>
> The current extension model is simple enough to reason about. A script
> must be provided in a template and is executed at CREATE EXTENSION time
> or at ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE time, and pg_dump only contains the CREATE
> EXTENSION command, so that pg_restore has to find the template again.
>
I understand that folks have complained about pg_dump/restore knowing "too
much" about extensions, but I do not find that a compelling argument- it's
being made from the perspective that an extension is defined by files on
the file system. Perhaps that means that what we're talking about aren't
extensions, but in that case, such arguments do not make much sense.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-11-30 23:21:08 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-11-30 22:59:15 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |