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

Re: Extensions, patch v16

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions, patch v16
Date: 2010-12-11 21:30:54
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:09 PM, David Fetter wrote:

>> 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?

One of the biggest mistakes in the creation of CPAN was allowing modules without extensions. It makes figuring out what to upgrade extremely difficult. Learning from that, PGXN requires version numbers for all extensions.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-12-11 21:35:24
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-12-11 21:26:13
Subject: Re: keeping a timestamp of the last stats reset (for a db, table and function)

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