Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Re: Extensions Dependency Checking
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote: > But I'm assuming that at some point there's going to be something a bit more robust: specifically, requiring a minimum version, perhaps something like: > > requires = 'foo 1.0, bar 0.31.4' Or maybe: requires = 'foo = 1.0, bar >= 0.31.4' > * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions. I agree. > * If that's true, I think it should be specified *now*, before extensions are in the wild, so that we don't end up with the legacy version string nightmares that Perl modules suffer from. I think I agree with this, too. > * If we do adopt a spec, I think it should reflect the PostgreSQL core version strings as closely as possible, and should be fully compatible with them. I am less sure about this one. > * 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
- Extensions Dependency Checking at 2011-04-01 15:45:02 from David E. Wheeler
Responses
- Re: Extensions Dependency Checking at 2011-04-04 21:48:34 from Tom Lane
pgsql-hackers by date
Next: From: Tom Lane Date: 2011-04-04 21:48:34 Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking Previous: From: Robert Haas Date: 2011-04-04 21:22:33 Subject: Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP)