RE: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:26:25AM +0700, Yurii Rashkovskii wrote:
> > I want to chime in on the issue of lower-number releases that are
> > released after higher-number releases. The way I see this particular
> > problem is that we always put upgrade SQL files in release "packages,"
> > and they obviously become static resources.
> >
> > While I [intentionally] overlook some details here, what if (as a
> > convention, for projects where it matters) we shipped extensions with
> > non-upgrade SQL files only, and upgrades were available as separate
> > downloads? This way, we're not tying releases themselves to upgrade paths.
> > This also requires no changes to Postgres.
>
> This is actually something that's on the plate, and we recently added a --
> disable-extension-upgrades-install configure switch and a `install-extension-
> upgrades-from-known-versions` make target in PostGIS to help going in that
> direction. I guess the ball would now be in the hands of packagers.
>
> > I know this may be a big delivery layout departure for
> > well-established projects; I also understand that this won't solve the
> > problem of having to have these files in the first place (though in
> > many cases, they can be automatically generated once, I suppose, if they are
> trivial).
>
> We will now also be providing a `postgis` script for administration that among
> other things will support a `install-extension-upgrades` command to install
> upgrade paths from specific old versions, but will not hard-code any list of
> "known" old versions as such a list will easily become outdated.
>
> Note that all upgrade scripts installed by the Makefile target or by the
> `postgis` scripts will only be empty upgrade paths from the source version to
> the fake "ANY" version, as the ANY--<current> upgrade path will still be the
> "catch-all" upgrade script.
>
> --strk;
>

Sounds like a user and packaging nightmare to me.
How is a packager to know which versions  a user might have installed?

and leaving that to users to run an extra command sounds painful.  They barely know how to run

ALTER EXTENSION postgis UPDATE;

Or pg_upgrade

I much preferred the idea of just listing all our upgrade targets in the control file.

The many annoyance I have left is the 1000 of files that seem to grow forever.

This isn't just postgis.  It's pgRouting, it's h3_pg, it's mobilitydb.

I don't want to have to set this up for every single extension that does micro-updates.
I just want a single file that can list all the target paths worst case.

We need to come up with a convention of how to describe a micro update, as it's really a problem with extensions that
followthe pattern 

major.minor.micro

In almost all cases the minor upgrade script works for all micros of that minor and in postgis yes we have a single
scriptthat works for all cases. 

Thanks,
Regina