Re: proposal - get_extension_version function

From: Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal - get_extension_version function
Date: 2023-03-08 21:18:00
Message-ID: CAAWbhmgye8=ZtKV4QEgZ6nkAE9UZGC_3A2jZnq2CinE6_dqF9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 11:22 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There is agreement - I call this check from functions.

I think pg_auto_failover does this too, or at least used to.

Timescale does strict compatibility checks as well. It's not entirely
comparable to your implementation, though.

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2023-03-08 21:23:28 Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2023-03-08 21:11:55 Re: proposal - get_extension_version function