On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:24:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Are there any actual remaining use-cases for that sed step?
> 
> > The goal here is to allow extension authors to maintain their version
> > number in the Makefile rather than in the Makefile and in the control
> > file separately. Having the same version number in more than one place
> > never eases maintenance.
> 
> Why is it in the makefile at all?  If the makefile does need to know it,
> why don't we have it scrape the number out of the control file?  Or even
> more to the point, since when do we need version numbers in extensions?

We *absolutely* need version numbers in extensions.  People will want
to have a certain version, or a certain minimum version, etc., etc.,
etc., just as they do for any other software.

Seriously, are you OK?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

• Re: Extensions, patch v16 at 2010-12-10 16:24:27 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Extensions, patch v16 at 2010-12-11 21:30:54 from David E. Wheeler

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Pavel Stehule	Date: 2010-12-11 21:22:36
	Subject: Re: proposal: auxiliary functions for record type
Previous:	From: Dimitri Fontaine	Date: 2010-12-11 21:08:32
	Subject: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10