Re: Extensions, patch v16

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions, patch v16
Date: 2010-12-10 16:24:27
Message-ID: 24239.1291998267@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-12-10 16:35:45 Re: Extensions, patch v16
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-10 16:19:32 Re: initdb failure with Postgres 8.4.4