David Christensen <da...@endpoint.com> writes:
> I assume this has already been discussed and rejected (or it wouldn't still
> be an issue), but what's wrong with the equivalent of \i in the successive
> .sql upgrade files? Or is the server running the scripts itself and no
> equivalent include feature exists in raw sql?
The latter. It wouldn't be that hard to invent something that would
pull in another file, but there are some issues concerning how you
figure out where to look for the file.
In any case, if we go down that path, we're still putting the burden on
the extension author to maintain a pile of little bitty script files --
a task that will get quite un-fun once you have dozens of active
versions. Automatically applying the files in sequence should be a lot
more convenient and less bug-prone.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
