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

Re: Extensions, patch v16

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
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: 2010-12-11 21:09:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:24:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Are there any actual remaining use-cases for that sed step?
> > The goal here is to allow extension authors to maintain their version
> > number in the Makefile rather than in the Makefile and in the control
> > file separately. Having the same version number in more than one place
> > never eases maintenance.
> 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?

We *absolutely* need version numbers in extensions.  People will want
to have a certain version, or a certain minimum version, etc., etc.,
etc., just as they do for any other software.

Seriously, are you OK?

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres:

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-12-11 21:22:36
Subject: Re: proposal: auxiliary functions for record type
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2010-12-11 21:08:32
Subject: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group