Re: proposal - get_extension_version function

Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> writes:
> What I'm trying to pin down is the project's position on the reverse
> -- binary version X and SQL version X+1 -- because that seems
> generally unmaintainable, and I don't understand why an author would
> pay that tax if they could just avoid it by bailing out entirely. (If
> an author wants to allow that, great, but does everyone have to?)

Hard to say. Our experience with the standard contrib modules is that
it really isn't much additional trouble; but perhaps more-complex modules
would have more interdependencies between functions. In any case,
I fail to see the need for basing things on a catalog lookup rather
than embedding API version numbers in relevant C symbols.

regards, tom lane