Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On 12/9/14 4:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 06:10:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> (For pg_upgrade you also need to do something about pg_upgrade_support, >>> which is good because that is one very ugly crock.)
>> FYI, pg_upgrade_support was segregated from pg_upgrade only because we >> wanted separate binary and shared object build/install targets. > I think the actual reason is that the makefile structure won't let you > have them both in the same directory. I don't see why you would need > separate install targets. > How about we move these support functions into the backend? It's not > like we don't already have other pg_upgrade hooks baked in all over the > place. I don't particularly object to having the C code built into the backend; there's not that much of it, and if we could static-ize some of the global variables that are involved presently, it'd be a Good Thing IMO. However, the current arrangement makes sure that the function are not accessible except during pg_upgrade, and that seems like a Good Thing as well. So I think pg_upgrade should continue to have SQL scripts that create and delete the SQL function definitions for these. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers