Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> 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.
Well, I've been trying to understand the consensus, and to implement it in the simplest possible way. Maybe the default should be to activate automatically --extension-script for extensions without control files? >> 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. I think here it is: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg01307.php -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
