Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:32:07 +0100
From: Sandro Santilli <strk@kbt.io>
Sender: strk@kbt.io
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Regina Obe <r@pcorp.us>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
Message-ID: <20230308123207.cbvozwyicy6gbbxu@c19>
References: <YgakFklJyM5pNdt+@c19>
 <20221117095734.igldlk6kngr6ogim@c19>
 <166914379479.1121.7549798686571352890.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <55512.1673304709@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20230110205259.htcuhg3t7shd367d@c19>
 <387183.1673394631@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobDy0sasmzOFkCcKXC3XeQZzRNwbaQRJ752tF1i11BRKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4025573.1678216387@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4025573.1678216387@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230308123207.cbvozwyicy6gbbxu%40c19>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:13:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> What I am maintaining is that no extension author is actually going
> to write such a script, indeed they probably won't trouble to write
> any downgrade-like actions at all.  Which makes the proposed design
> mostly a foot-gun.

What I'm maintaining is that such authors should be warned about
the risk, and discouraged from installing any wildcard-containing
script UNLESS they deal with downgrade protection.

PostGIS does deal with that kind of protection (yes, could be helped
somehow in doing that by PostgreSQL).

> I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of trying to support multiple upgrade
> paths in one script.  I just don't like this particular design for that,
> because it requires the extension author to make promises that nobody
> is actually going to deliver on.

Would you be ok with a stricter pattern matching ? Something like:

  postgis--3.3.%--3.3.ANY.sql
  postgis--3.3.ANY--3.4.0.sql

Would that be easier to promise something about ?

--strk;