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