čt 3. 6. 2021 v 8:14 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, at 00:55, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:32 PM Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> wrote: > > But if running a recent PostgreSQL version, with support for extensions, I > think an even cleaner solution > would be to package such compatibility versions in a "compat" extension, > that would just install them into the public schema. > > > Writing, verifying and shipping extension upgrade scripts is not pleasant. > > > I agree. Thanks for acknowledging this problem. > > I'm experimenting with an idea that I hope can simplify the "verifying" > part of the problem. > hope to have something to show you all soon. > > I'd much prefer something that's integrated to the workflow I already have. > > > Fair point. I guess also the initial switching cost of changing workflow > is quite high and difficult to motivate. So even if extensions ergonomics > are improved, many existing users will not migrate their workflows anyway > due to this. > > > > And if you wonder what functions in public come from the compat extension, > you can use use \dx+. > > > They still show up everywhere when looking at "public". So this is only > slightly better, and a maintenance burden. > > > Good point. I find this annoying as well sometimes. > > It's easy to get a list of all objects for an extension, via \dx+ > > But it's hard to see what objects in a schema, that are provided by > different extensions, via e.g. \df public.* > > What about adding a new "Extension" column next to "Schema" to the > relevant commands, such as \df? > I think so for \df+ it can be very useful. I don't think it is important enough to be in short form, but it can be nice in enhanced form. Pavel > /Joel >
