On 2012-12-05 23:28:45 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > What happens on a normal pg_dump of the complete database? For > > extensions that were installed using strings instead of files, do I get > > a string back? Because if not, the restore is clearly going to fail > > anyway. > > The argument here is that the user would then have packaged its > extension as files in the meantime. If not, that's operational error. A > backup you didn't restore successfully isn't a backup anyway.
Uh. Wait. What? If that argument is valid, we don't need anything but file based extensions. > > I mean, clearly the user doesn't want to list the extensions, figure > > which ones were installed by strings, and then do pg_dump > > --extension-script on them. > > The idea is that the user did install the extensions that came by > strings. Last year the consensus was clearly for pg_dump not to > distinguish in between file based and string based extensions that are > exactly the same thing once installed in a database. That's the current > design. I don't find that argument convincing in the slightest. Could I perhaps convince you to dig up a reference? I would be interested in the arguments for that design back then. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
