GIN had some minor issues too, mostly using "internal" where something
else would be more appropriate. I went with the same approach as in
9ff60273e3, namely preferring the opclass' indexed datatype for
arguments that receive an operator RHS value, even if that's not
necessarily what they really are.
Again, this is with an eye to having a uniform rule for ginvalidate()
to check support function signatures.
The conventions specified by the GiST SGML documentation were widely
ignored. For example, the strategy-number argument for "consistent" and
"distance" functions is specified to be a smallint, but most of the
built-in support functions declared it as an integer, and for that matter
the core code passed it using Int32GetDatum not Int16GetDatum. None of
that makes any real difference at runtime, but it's quite confusing for
newcomers to the code, and it makes it very hard to write an amvalidate()
function that checks support function signatures. So let's try to instill
some consistency here.
Another similar issue is that the "query" argument is not of a single
well-defined type, but could have different types depending on the strategy
(corresponding to search operators with different righthand-side argument
types). Some of the functions threw up their hands and declared the query
argument as being of "internal" type, which surely isn't right ("any" would
have been more appropriate); but the majority position seemed to be to
declare it as being of the indexed data type, corresponding to a search
operator with both input types the same. So I've specified a convention
that that's what to do always.
Also, the result of the "union" support function actually must be of the
index's storage type, but the documentation suggested declaring it to
return "internal", and some of the functions followed that. Standardize
on telling the truth, instead.
Similarly, standardize on declaring the "same" function's inputs as
being of the storage type, not "internal".
Also, somebody had forgotten to add the "recheck" argument to both
the documentation of the "distance" support function and all of their
SQL declarations, even though the C code was happily using that argument.
Clean that up too.
Fix up some other omissions in the docs too, such as documenting that
union's second input argument is vestigial.
So far as the errors in core function declarations go, we can just fix
pg_proc.h and bump catversion. Adjusting the erroneous declarations in
contrib modules is more debatable: in principle any change in those
scripts should involve an extension version bump, which is a pain.
However, since these changes are purely cosmetic and make no functional
difference, I think we can get away without doing that.
We have seen one too many reports of people trying to use 9.1 extension
files in the old-fashioned way of sourcing them in psql. Not only does
that usually not work (due to failure to substitute for MODULE_PATHNAME
and/or @extschema@), but if it did work they'd get a collection of loose
objects not an extension. To prevent this, insert an \echo ... \quit
line that prints a suitable error message into each extension script file,
and teach commands/extension.c to ignore lines starting with \echo.
That should not only prevent any adverse consequences of loading a script
file the wrong way, but make it crystal clear to users that they need to
do it differently now.
Tom Lane, following an idea of Andrew Dunstan's. Back-patch into 9.1
... there is not going to be much value in this if we wait till 9.2.
It was never terribly consistent to use OR REPLACE (because of the lack of
comparable functionality for data types, operators, etc), and
experimentation shows that it's now positively pernicious in the extension
world. We really want a failure to occur if there are any conflicts, else
it's unclear what the extension-ownership state of the conflicted object
ought to be. Most of the time, CREATE EXTENSION will fail anyway because
of conflicts on other object types, but an extension defining only
functions can succeed, with bad results.
This isn't fully tested as yet, in particular I'm not sure that the
"foo--unpackaged--1.0.sql" scripts are OK. But it's time to get some
buildfarm cycles on it.
sepgsql is not converted to an extension, mainly because it seems to
require a very nonstandard installation process.
Dimitri Fontaine and Tom Lane
Tom Lane