Re: Extension Packaging

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:00 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:

> These are really great points. I knew I wasn't thrilled about this suggest, but wasn't sure why. Frankly, I think it will be really confusing to users who think they have FooBar 1.2.2 installed but see only 1.2 in the database. I don't think I would do that, personally. I'm much more inclined to have the same extension version everywhere I can.

Really, that means you just a sql function to your extension,
somethign similary to uname -a, or rpm -qi, which includes something
that is *forced* to change the postgresql catalog view of your
extension every time you ship a new version (major, or patch), and
then you get the exact version (and whatever else you include) for
free every time you update ;-)

The thing to remember is that the postgresql "extensions" are managing
the *postgresql catalogs* view of things, even though the shared
object used by postgresql to provide the particular catalog's
requirements can be "fixed".

If your extension is almost exclusively a shared object, and the only
catalog things are a couple of functions defined to point into the C
code, there really isn't anything catalog-wise that you need to
"manage" for upgrades.

--
Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca                                       command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/                                   work like a slave.