| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension Packaging |
| Date: | 2011-04-24 22:21:14 |
| Message-ID: | 5F62869B-43A5-4A04-9984-8EDE9C55D7D4@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 24, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. It seems like a bad idea if the distribution "name" doesn't
> include sufficient information to tell which version it contains.
> I had in mind a convention like "distribution version x.y.z always
> contains extension version x.y". Seems like minor version versus
> major version would be the way to explain that.
Does that apply to PostgreSQL itself? I guess release 9.0.4 contains 9.0. But it's a convention.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-04-24 22:31:55 | Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-04-24 22:15:44 | Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind |