On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 15:48 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > > I don't see why we are trying to accommodate a case where the author > > doesn't offer enough full SQL scripts and offers broken downgrade > > scripts; or why that case is different from offering broken upgrade > > scripts. > > That's fair enough I guess. I will work on automating the choice of the > first full script to use then, for next patch version.
Can we separate this feature out? It's an issue with extensions today, and I'm eager to make some progress after the explosion of differing opinions today. Robert, do you think this is an acceptable approach to solve your pet peeve here: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA +tgmoae3qs4qbqfxouzzfxrsxa0zy8ibsoysuutzdumpea...@mail.gmail.com As an aside, I'm still not entirely sure why pg_dump omits the version of the extension. It seems to introduce unnecessary ways to fail during restore -- e.g. you've updated to (and depend on) 1.1, but restore will try to restore using an old default of 1.0. Is it so that extension authors can drop support for old SQL scripts and the restore will just find the newer one? If the reason the extension version is left out is because we can't find the upgrade path to the requested version, this feature should fix that. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
