Dave Cramer
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 13:43, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > On 2021-Jul-29, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > + If the old cluster used extensions, whether from > > + <filename>contrib</filename> or some other source, it used > > + shared object files (or DLLs) to implement these extensions, e.g., > > + <filename>pgcrypto.so</filename>. Now, shared object files > matching > > + the new server binary must be installed in the new cluster, usually > > + via operating system commands. Do not load the schema definitions, > > + e.g., <command>CREATE EXTENSION pgcrypto</command>, because these > > + will be copied from the old cluster. (Extensions should be > upgraded > > + later using <literal>ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE</literal>.) > > I propose this: > > <para> > If the old cluster used shared-object files (or DLLs) for extensions > or other loadable modules, install recompiled versions of those files > onto the new cluster. > Do not install the extension themselves (i.e., do not run > <command>CREATE EXTENSION</command>), because extension definitions > will be carried forward from the old cluster. > </para> > > <para> > Extensions can be upgraded after pg_upgrade completes using > <command>ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE</command>, on a per-database > basis. > </para> > > I suggest " ... for extensions or other loadable modules" because > loadable modules aren't necessarily for extensions. Also, it's > perfectly possible to have extension that don't have a loadable module. > > I suggest "extension definitions ... carried forward" instead of > "extensions ... copied" (your proposed text) to avoid the idea that > files are copied; use it instead of "schema definitions ... upgraded" > (the current docs) to avoid the idea that they are actually upgraded; > also, "schema definition" seems a misleading term to use here. > I like "carried forward", however it presumes quite a bit of knowledge of what is going on inside pg_upgrade. That said I don't have a better option short of explaining the whole thing which is clearly out of scope. > > I suggest "can be upgraded" rather than "should be upgraded" because > we're not making a recommendation, merely stating the fact that it is > possible to do so. > > Why not recommend it? I was going to suggest that we actually run alter extension upgrade ... on all of them as a solution. What are the downsides to upgrading them all by default ? AFAIK if they need upgrading this should run all of the SQL scripts, if they don't then this should be a NO-OP. Dave
