Re: Dumping an Extension's Script

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> The argument here is that the user would then have packaged its
>> extension as files in the meantime. If not, that's operational error. A
>> backup you didn't restore successfully isn't a backup anyway.
>
> Uh. Wait. What? If that argument is valid, we don't need anything but
> file based extensions.

Well, I've been trying to understand the consensus, and to implement it
in the simplest possible way. Maybe the default should be to activate
automatically --extension-script for extensions without control files?

>> The idea is that the user did install the extensions that came by
>> strings. Last year the consensus was clearly for pg_dump not to
>> distinguish in between file based and string based extensions that are
>> exactly the same thing once installed in a database. That's the current
>> design.
>
> I don't find that argument convincing in the slightest. Could I perhaps
> convince you to dig up a reference? I would be interested in the
> arguments for that design back then.

I think here it is:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg01307.php

--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support