| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, "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 16:35:45 |
| Message-ID: | m2tyil60wu.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> 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?
It's in the Makefile so that you find it in the control file later, then
in the extension catalog. We need the version number just because I'm
not able to name a single software that's not letting you know about its
version number once installed.
Well in fact I know about one, and I wish the situation would be quite
different there.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-10 16:39:51 | Re: BufFreelistLock |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-10 16:24:27 | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |