Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Extensions Dependency Checking

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking
Date: 2011-04-04 22:06:57
Message-ID: BANLkTin5m6gt7ibZA8BrB5=H1keJuOQ49g@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

Oh, really?  How can you possibly get by without it?  Dependencies of
this type are all over the place.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2011-04-04 22:12:59
Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-04-04 21:48:34
Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group