Re: Extensions Dependency Checking

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.

> I agree.

I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that decision
needs to be reversed. David can choose to enforce something for stuff
distributed through PGXN if he wishes, but that's no concern of the core
server's. In particular I'm really skeptical of the theory that we need
or should want version restrictions in Requires references. The
equivalent feature in RPM is deprecated for Fedora/RedHat packaging use,
and I see no reason why we'd need it more than they do.

>> * So it might be worth looking at semver or something similar to integrate.

> No. It's too late to be monkeying with this. I think for 9.1 we will
> need to content ourselves with setting a good precedent, rather than
> enforcing it programatically. It's not going to work to insist on all
> numeric version strings anyway, because we've already got this 'FROM
> unpackaged' bit floating around.

Once 9.1 is out, it'll probably be too late to dictate any semantics for
version numbers, because somebody will have done something incompatible
with it before 9.2 is released. If we are going to try to insist on
this, now is the time. But I don't agree with that position.

regards, tom lane