On Feb3, 2011, at 16:31 , Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reeds...@rice.edu> writes: >> Hmm, how about allowing a list of files to execute? That allows the > > Sure. I still don't see why doing it in the control file is better than > in the Makefile, even if it's already better than in the SQL script, at > least in terms of code to write to support the idea. > > Speaking about which, using Make rules to prepare your upgrade files > from other pieces means no development at all on the backend side. You > can hardly beat that.
I fully agree. The extension infrastructure should provide basic support for upgrades, not every kind of bell and whistle one could possible think of. The bells and whistles can then be provided by the system used to *build* the extension. Not only does this keep the core infrastructure manageable, it also allows different tools to generate the update scripts to exist, each catering to the needs of different kinds of extensions. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
