On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Renzo Kottmann <rkott...@mpi-bremen.de> wrote: > On 07/18/2011 05:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Sandro Santilli <s...@keybit.net> wrote: >>> Trying to exclude items from dumps of postgis-enabled databases >>> we use pg_restore -l output and strip what we think belong to PostGIS. >>> >>> In doing so, Renzo found that for OPERATOR there are not enough >>> informations to unambiguosly find it being part of PostGIS (see >>> included mail snippet). >>> >>> Do you think this could be improved on the pg_restore side ? >> In 9.1, we've added the concept of EXTENSIONs. I'm not sure whether >> PostGIS is planning to take advantage of this mechanism, but it's >> designed to solve exactly this problem. >> > The extensions concept will be a big step forward, no doubt. > > I just do not think that it solves the aforementioned problem. AFAIK > the extension system will be available for 9.1 only. Then it would not > be available for all kinds of dump/restore scenarios <9.1 (in my case > from 8.4 to 9.0).
Yeah, that's a problem. The mechanism does include some magic that's supposed to help deal with this. The idea is -- first, you upgrade to 9.1 -- next, you say something like CREATE EXTENSION ename FROM unpackaged -- finally, you upgrade the extension using ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE. However, I'm not sure whether PostGIS is planning to support this mechanism, or whether it meets their needs. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
