public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
To: Regina Obe <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 16:50:20 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <YgakFklJyM5pNdt+@c19>
	<[email protected]>

On Fri, 2022-05-27 at 17:37 -0400, Regina Obe wrote:
> > At PostGIS we've been thinking of ways to have better support, from
> > PostgreSQL proper, to our upgrade strategy, which has always consisted in a
> > SINGLE upgrade file good for upgrading from any older version.
> > 
> > The current lack of such support for EXTENSIONs forced us to install a lot of
> > files on disk and we'd like to stop doing that at some point in the future.
> > 
> > The proposal is to support wildcards for versions encoded in the filename so
> > that (for our case) a single wildcard could match "any version". I've been
> > thinking about the '%' character for that, to resemble the wildcard used for
> > LIKE.
> > 
> > Here's the proposal:
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2022-February/029500.html
> > 
> > A very very short (and untested) patch which might (or might not) support our
> > case is attached.
> > 
> > The only problem with my proposal/patch would be the presence, on the wild,
> > of PostgreSQL EXTENSION actually using the '%' character in their version
> > strings, which is currently considered legit by PostgreSQL.
> > 
> > How do you feel about the proposal (which is wider than the patch) ?
> 
> Just a heads up about the above, Sandro has added it as a commitfest item
> which hopefully we can polish in time for PG16.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3654/
> 
> Does anyone think this is such a horrible idea that we should abandon all
> hope?
> 
> The main impetus is that many extensions (postgis, pgRouting, and I'm sure
> others) have over 300 extensions script files that are exactly the same.
> We'd like to reduce this footprint significantly.
> 
> strk said the patch is crappy so don't look at it just yet.  We'll work on
> polishing it.  I'll review and provide docs for it.

I don't think this idea is fundamentally wrong, but I have two worries:

1. It would be a good idea good to make sure that there is not both
   "extension--%--2.0.sql" and "extension--1.0--2.0.sql" present.
   Otherwise the behavior might be indeterministic.

2. What if you have a "postgis--%--3.3.sql", and somebody tries to upgrade
   their PostGIS 1.1 installation with it?  Would that work?
   Having a lower bound for a matching version might be a good idea,
   although I have no idea how to do that.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

view thread (24+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox