On 13 October 2016 at 12:37, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> writes: >> As we are planning to change an extension name from one name to another >> name because of additional features that are added into this extension, > > The usual approach to that is just to increase the version number. > Why is it necessary to change the name? > >> I just thought of adding the support of (ALTER EXTENSION name RENAME To >> newname), this can be executed before executing the pg_upgrade to the new >> extension name that is available in the >> newer version. > > And if the user forgets to do that before upgrading? Not to mention > that the extension is mostly broken the moment its SQL name no longer > corresponds to the on-disk control file name. This seems like > a non-solution. > > In general, once you've shipped something, changing its name is a huge > pain both for you and your users. Just say no.
I've touched on a somewhat related case when I wanted to merge two extensions into one. I took a look and quickly punted on it as way too messy, but I'm sure there are legitimate use cases for splitting/merging extensions. That doesn't mean we want to carry little-used infrastructure for it or that anyone's going to care enough to implement anything. Certainly my need wasn't worth doing it for, and it was a simple one. Doing things like extracting only some parts of an extension into another extension while maintaining correct dependencies sounds nightmarish. So I'm with you. Just don't rename it. -- Craig Ringer 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
