On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'd like to answer this question, but I have not had enough time to > read through this patch in detail, because there are 97 patches in > this CommitFest. The point I'm trying to make, however, is > procedural. We shouldn't commit anything at the very end of a > development cycle that we're not reasonably comfortable we can live > with, because there is not a lot of time to change our minds later. I > completely believe that an extension upgrade mechanism is a good thing > to have and I'm sympathetic to your desire to get this into 9.1 - but > the fact is that we are very short on time, the prerequisite patch is > not committed yet, and this is a big piece of functionality in a > tricky area which was submitted for the last CommitFest of the cycle > and about which there is not a clear design consensus.
Robert, I think that the core extension if pretty uncontroversial, modulo some minor issues. It's the upgrade process that's more controversial. I think the case can be made to accept even that part as Dim has written it, because it is pretty much the bare minimum that other solutions could be built on top of and improve upon. But if not, I think that's the only part the one might really look at as something to omit for 9.1. Dim, I haven't followed that closely lately, but is the ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE bit still a separate patch? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
