Re: Dumping an Extension's Script

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Dumping an Extension's Script
Date: 2012-12-05 22:28:45
Message-ID: m2wqwwcew2.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> What happens on a normal pg_dump of the complete database? For
> extensions that were installed using strings instead of files, do I get
> a string back? Because if not, the restore is clearly going to fail
> anyway.

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.

> I mean, clearly the user doesn't want to list the extensions, figure
> which ones were installed by strings, and then do pg_dump
> --extension-script on them.

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.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2012-12-05 22:30:24 Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker
Previous Message Andres Freund 2012-12-05 22:25:02 Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker