Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:28 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > The changes to the contrib modules appear to be incomplete in some ways. > > > In cube, hstore, and seg, there are no changes to the extension > > > scripts to remove the operators. All you're doing is changing the C > > > code to no longer recognize the strategy, but that doesn't explain what > > > will happen if the operator is still used. In intarray, by contrast, > > > you're editing an existing extension script, but that should be done by > > > an upgrade script instead. > > > > In the contrib modules, I'm afraid what you gotta do is remove the > > SQL operator definitions but leave the opclass code support in place. > > That's because there's no guarantee that users will update the extension's > > SQL version immediately, so a v14 build of the .so might still be used > > with the old SQL definitions. It's not clear how much window we need > > give for people to do that update, but I don't think "zero" is an > > acceptable answer. > > Based on my experience from the field, the answer is "never". > > As in, most people have no idea they are even *supposed* to do such an > upgrade, so they don't do it. Until we solve that problem, I think > we're basically stuck with keeping them "forever". (and even if/when > we do, "zero" is probably not going to cut it, no)
Yeah, this is a serious problem and one that we should figure out a way to fix or at least improve on- maybe by having pg_upgrade say something about extensions that could/should be upgraded..? Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
