| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrading Extension, version numbers |
| Date: | 2011-01-05 19:36:24 |
| Message-ID: | m2y66zjg7b.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> My understanding of the consensus is that it wasn't felt necessary for
> the purpose for which it was proposed. I think it could be
> re-proposed with a different argument and very possibly accepted.
Sure. I'd still prefer us to adopt the solution I've been promoting,
obviously, which I think has more merits. Namely no directory scanning,
easy to support extension names such as postgis-1.5, and easy to support
for a single upgrade file supporting upgrades from more than a single
version, and bypassing entirely the need to know what version numbering
scheme is in use: you just don't need to know how to compute previous or
next version number.
Now it's all about tradeoffs, and I'm just trying to explain what the
one I'm doing here seems to me to have lot of sense.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-05 19:37:34 | Re: making an unlogged table logged |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-01-05 19:36:22 | Re: making an unlogged table logged |