Re: Extensions, patch v16

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions, patch v16
Date: 2010-12-29 20:36:44
Message-ID: 114FA6B0-CB49-4033-A5E4-8DFF23199709@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Dec 29, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> We had a long discussion upthread of what version numbers to keep where.
> IMHO the Makefile is about the *least* useful place to put a version
> number; the more so if you want more than one. What we seem to need is
> a version number in the .sql file itself (so that we can tell whether we
> need to take action to update the extension's catalog entries). I'm not
> convinced yet whether there needs to be another version number embedded
> in the .so file --- it may well be that the PG major version number
> embedded with PG_MODULE_MAGIC is sufficient.

For contrib maybe, but not 3rd-party extensions.

> Personally I'd forget the notion of major.minor numbers here; all that
> will accomplish is to complicate storage and comparison of the numbers.
> We just need a simple integer that gets bumped whenever the extension's
> SQL script changes.

That won't be very flexible for third-party extensions. FWIW, for PGXN I mandated symantic version numbers (http://semver.org/), mainly because they're quite close to Pg core version numbers. I also created a basic data type for them:

https://github.com/theory/pgxn-manager/blob/master/sql/02-types.sql#L70

Best,

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2010-12-29 20:36:55 Re: SSI SLRU strategy choices
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-12-29 20:34:03 Re: Anyone for SSDs?