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
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 |