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

Re: Extensions Dependency Checking

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking
Date: 2011-04-04 22:06:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>>> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
>> I agree.
> I don't.  We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
> interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that decision
> needs to be reversed.  David can choose to enforce something for stuff
> distributed through PGXN if he wishes, but that's no concern of the core
> server's.  In particular I'm really skeptical of the theory that we need
> or should want version restrictions in Requires references.  The
> equivalent feature in RPM is deprecated for Fedora/RedHat packaging use,
> and I see no reason why we'd need it more than they do.

Oh, really?  How can you possibly get by without it?  Dependencies of
this type are all over the place.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2011-04-04 22:12:59
Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-04-04 21:48:34
Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking

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