Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Dimitri Fontaine |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | m2oc8t1em4.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; (was: Extensions, patch v16) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Responses |
Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;
Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> I don't believe that extension SQL scripts should rely on DO blocks.
> There is no requirement that plpgsql be installed, and we're not going
> to create one as part of this feature. What this means is that the
> design you offer above doesn't work at all, since it fundamentally
> assumes that the SQL script can do conditional logic. What's more,
> it fundamentally assumes that the script WILL do conditional logic
> and support (in one lump) every possible combination of versions.
> That's going to turn into buggy spaghetti-code very quickly.
Yeah, I was picturing a main script that calls other ones by means of PERFORM
pg_execute_from_file('upgrade_script.sql');
Of course if plpgsql is not to be a requirement, the DO blocks hosting
the CASE logic won't fly and all that blows away.
> I think that something that could work is more along the lines of the
> extension containing different upgrade scripts for whatever set of cases
> the author feels like supporting; for example the foo extension might
> provide both
> foo_upgrade.11.13.sql
> foo_upgrade.12.13.sql
> if the author is willing to support one-step upgrades from two preceding
> versions to version 13. It would then be the responsibility of the
> ALTER EXTENSION code to select and execute the correct upgrade script.
> A missing script would be reported as an upgrade failure by ALTER
> EXTENSION.
>
> (Actually, we could probably assume that the target version is
> implicitly "the current version", as identified from the control file,
> and omit that from the script file names. That would avoid ambiguity
> if version numbers can have more than one part.)
I don't think we can safely design around one part version numbers here,
because I'm yet to see that happening in any extension I've had my hands
on, which means a few already, as you can imagine.
Now, what about having the control file host an 'upgrade' property where
to put the script name? We would have to support a way for this filename
to depend on the already installed version, I'm thinking that %v might
be the easiest here (read: I want to avoid depending on any version
scheme).
version = '13' script = 'foo.sql' upgrade = 'foo_upgrade.%v.13.sql'
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
pgsql-hackers by date: