From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Regina Obe <r@pcorp.us>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Sandro Santilli <strk@kbt.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
In-reply-to: <166914379479.1121.7549798686571352890.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
References: <YgakFklJyM5pNdt+@c19> <20221117095734.igldlk6kngr6ogim@c19> <166914379479.1121.7549798686571352890.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Regina Obe <r@pcorp.us>
	message dated "Tue, 22 Nov 2022 19:03:14 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <55511.1673304709.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2023 17:51:49 -0500
Message-ID: <55512.1673304709@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55512.1673304709%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I continue to think that this is a fundamentally bad idea.  It creates
all sorts of uncertainties about what is a valid update path and what
is not.  Restrictions like

+     Such wildcard update
+     scripts will only be used when no explicit path is found from
+     old to target version.

are just band-aids to try to cover up the worst problems.

Have you considered the idea of instead inventing a "\include" facility
for extension scripts?  Then, if you want to use one-monster-script
to handle different upgrade cases, you still need one script file for
each supported upgrade step, but those can be one-liners including the
common script file.  Plus, such a facility could be of use to people
who want intermediate factorization solutions (that is, some sharing
of code without buying all the way into one-monster-script).

			regards, tom lane