Robert Haas writes:
> My understanding of the consensus is that it wasn't felt necessary for
> the purpose for which it was proposed. I think it could be
> re-proposed with a different argument and very possibly accepted.
Sure. I'd still prefer us to adopt the solution I've been promoting,
obvi
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> There's no consensus to publish a bakend \i like function. So there's
>> no support for this upgrade script organizing you're promoting. Unless
>> the consensus changes again (but a commit has been done).
>
> My understanding of the consensus i
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having
>> scripts \i each other as appropriate.
>
> This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about the
> pg_execute_from_file() patc
On Jan 4, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> * Prefer convention over configuration
>
> The previous idea about the convention is not flying well with the very
> recent proposal of ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE TO VERSION ..., because
> it would certainly re
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> * Prefer convention over configuration
The previous idea about the convention is not flying well with the very
recent proposal of ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE TO VERSION ..., because
it would certainly require that the extension's name include its major
version number,
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having
>> scripts \i each other as appropriate.
>
> This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about the
> pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but wit
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> As Tom pointed out, you can do the same with naming conventions by having
> scripts \i each other as appropriate.
This is a deprecated idea, though. We're talking about the
pg_execute_from_file() patch that has been applied, but without the
pg_execute_sql_file() fun
On Jan 4, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> Just so long as you're aware that you might get more challenges on this
>> going forward.
>
> Sure, thanks for the reminder. That said I also remember the reaction
> when I used to scan the SHARE/contrib direc
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> Just so long as you're aware that you might get more challenges on this going
> forward.
Sure, thanks for the reminder. That said I also remember the reaction
when I used to scan the SHARE/contrib directory to find the extension
control file having the right name pr
On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> The fact that the last two messages in the thread say something else
>> does not mean that they represent the consensus.
>
> Yeah, but as I'm the one writing the code, I gave myself more than one
> vote. And did
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> The fact that the last two messages in the thread say something else
> does not mean that they represent the consensus.
Yeah, but as I'm the one writing the code, I gave myself more than one
vote. And did consider the alternatives but didn't like them so much.
> Righ
On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Not what I have understood.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01014.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01045.php
>
> AS there was no answer, the meaning for me is that it was ok to
> pro
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> I thought we were going to try to avoid having entries for upgrades in
> the control file.
Not what I have understood.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01014.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01045.php
AS there wa
13 matches
Mail list logo
