On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>>> And how does the information flows from the Makefile to the production
>>> server, already?
>>
>> `make` generates the file if it doesn't already exist.
>
> Again, will retry when possible, but it has been a ti
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Well it does not seem to be complex to code. It's about having a new
> property in the control file, relocatable, boolean. This property is
> required and controls the behavior of the CREATE EXTENSION ... WITH
> SCHEMA command. When true we use the ALTER EXTENSION SET SC
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> And how does the information flows from the Makefile to the production
>> server, already?
>
> `make` generates the file if it doesn't already exist.
Again, will retry when possible, but it has been a time sink once already.
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.f
On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> I don't see why. Most of them are dead simple and could easily be
>> Makefile variables.
>
> And how does the information flows from the Makefile to the production
> server, already?
`make` generates the file if it doesn't already exist.
Da
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> I don't see why. Most of them are dead simple and could easily be
> Makefile variables.
And how does the information flows from the Makefile to the production
server, already?
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation e
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Kineticode Billing writes:
>> No, it's not. There are no unit tests at all. You can call the contrib
>> modules and their tests acceptance tests, but that's not the same
>> thing.
>
> Ok, I need some more guidance here. All contrib extension
Kineticode Billing writes:
> No, it's not. There are no unit tests at all. You can call the contrib
> modules and their tests acceptance tests, but that's not the same
> thing.
Ok, I need some more guidance here. All contrib extension (there are 38
of them) are using the CREATE EXTENSION command
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> It's certainly true that a large fraction of contrib modules should be
>> relocatable in that sense, because they just contain C functions that
>> aren't going to care.
>
> As they all currently are using the SET search_path TO public; trick
On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>>> What about unaccent? Or lo (1 domain, 2 functions)?
>>
>> Sure. Doesn't have to actually do anything.
>
> Ok, so that's already in the patch :)
No, it's not. There are no unit tests at all. You can call the co
Tom Lane writes:
> Dimitri's last reply to me
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/87r5ds1v4q@hi-media-techno.com
> suggests that what he has in mind is to define a relocatable extension
> as one that can be relocated ;-), ie it does not contain any such
> gotchas. Maybe this is too ug
Robert Haas writes:
> Exposing it to the user is what I think is ugly.
Ok, and the current idea fixes that! :)
> It's also worth noting that ALTER EXTENSION .. SET SCHEMA does NOT
> guarantee a correct relocation, because someone might have done ALTER
> FUNCTION .. SET search_path = @extschema@,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> It's also worth noting that ALTER EXTENSION .. SET SCHEMA does NOT
>> guarantee a correct relocation, because someone might have done ALTER
>> FUNCTION .. SET search_path = @extschema@, and that's not going to get
>> proper
Robert Haas writes:
> It's also worth noting that ALTER EXTENSION .. SET SCHEMA does NOT
> guarantee a correct relocation, because someone might have done ALTER
> FUNCTION .. SET search_path = @extschema@, and that's not going to get
> properly fixed up. I'm coming to the conclusion more and more
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I think this so-called two-step approach is pretty ugly.
>
> Well it does not need to be exposed to the user, thinking about it, as
> proposed in the other thread. Other than that, you're argument here is
> exactly t
Robert Haas writes:
> I think this so-called two-step approach is pretty ugly.
Well it does not need to be exposed to the user, thinking about it, as
proposed in the other thread. Other than that, you're argument here is
exactly the same as the ones saying that VACUUM or Hint Bints are
bad. It's
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> What about unaccent? Or lo (1 domain, 2 functions)?
>
> Sure. Doesn't have to actually do anything.
Ok, so that's already in the patch :)
>> That's called a shared catalog. I don't see any benefit of having to
>> maintain that when we do already have a directory con
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> IOW, if I install extension "foo" and it does *not* have the above
>>> magic line, then this command will *not* do what I expect:
>>>
>>> CREATE EXTENSION foo WITH SCHEMA bar;
>>>
>>> Extension "foo" will be in the public schema (usual
On Dec 7, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> You write a very simple contrib module exclusively for testing. It
>> doesn't have to actually do anything other than create a couple of
>> objects. A domain perhaps.
>
> What about unaccent? Or lo (1 domain, 2 functions)?
Sure. Doesn't have
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> Overall I think the docs could use a lot more fleshing out. Some of
> the stuff in the wiki would help a lot. At some point, though, I'll
> work over the docs myself and either send a patch to you or to the
> list (if it has been committed to core).
Ok, I'll leave it
On Dec 4, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review, that's quite one! :)
>
> I'm not sure to follow you all along, it seems like the reading is "try
> it first then understand and comment again", so sometimes I'm not sure
> if you're saying that docs are missing
Hi,
Thanks for the review, that's quite one! :)
I'm not sure to follow you all along, it seems like the reading is "try
it first then understand and comment again", so sometimes I'm not sure
if you're saying that docs are missing the point or that the behaviour
ain't right.
"David E. Wheeler" w
Extensions Patch v15 Review
===
Submission review
-
* Is the patch in context diff format?
Yes.
* Does it apply cleanly to the current git master?
Yes.
* Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc?
`make check` passes.
`make installch
22 matches
Mail list logo
