On 12/19/2013 08:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Stephen Frost escribió:
* Dimitri Fontaine (dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr) wrote:
Basically with building `UNIT` we realise with hindsight that we failed to
build a proper `EXTENSION` system, and we send that message to our users.
Little difficult to draw conclusions about what out 'hindsight' will
look like.
I haven't been keeping very close attention to this, but I fail to see
why extensions are so much of a failure. Surely we can invent a new
"kind" of extensions, ones whose contents specifically are dumped by
pg_dump. Regular extensions, the kind we have today, still wouldn't,
but we could have a flag, say "CREATE EXTENSION ... (WITH DUMP)" or
something. That way you don't have to come up with UNIT at all (or
whatever). A whole new set of catalogs just to fix up a minor issue
with extensions sounds a bit too much to me; we can just add this new
thing on top of the existing infrastructure.
Yep.
I'm not very convinced that extensions are a failure. I've certainly
had plenty of good experiences with them, and I think others have as
well, so I believe Dimitri's allegation that we've somehow failed here
is overstated.
Indeed. There might be limitations, but what we have is VERY useful.
Let's keep things in proportion here.
That having been said, having a flag we can set to
dump the extension contents normally rather than just dumping a CREATE
EXTENSION statement seems completely reasonable to me.
ALTER EXTENSION foo SET (dump_members = true/false);
It's even got use cases outside of what Dimitri wants to do, like
dumping and restoring an extension that you've manually modified
without losing your changes.
Yeah, seems like it might have merit.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
