Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I don't think we should commit something that for 9.1 that we may need > to change incompatibly for 9.2. If we're not completely happy with > it, it gets booted. Whatever we put in place here is going to be with > us for a long, long time.
So, what is it specifically here that you're unhappy with? a. ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; b. CREATE WRAPPER EXTENSION ...; (version is then NULL) c. upgrade rules in the control file d. ALTER OBJECT ... SET EXTENSION ...; e. having upgrade scripts for upgrading contribs from null f. having those scripts named $contrib.upgrade.sql What I think is that the end-user syntax (the SQL DDLs) that we add are going to fall exactly into the category you're talking about: long, long term support. But that could well be less true of the control file, should we choose so. I think there's enough value in being able to get extension from what you had installed in pre-9.1; that changing some non-DLL bits in 9.2 is something we can set ourselves to consider. But anyway, we've been doing quite a round of expectations, explaining, detailing, and bikeshedding on the features already, so I'd like to see a break down, because it appears clearly that some readers changed their mind in the process. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
