Horton

Re: Finer Extension dependencies

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>

View thread
From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-04-03T08:15:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> On Apr 2, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Or an extension could specify itself which version numbering scheme it
>>> uses.  This just has to be a reference to a type, which in turn could be
>>> semver, debversion, or even just numeric or text (well, maybe name).
>>> Then you'd just need to use the comparison operators of that type to
>>> figure things out.

That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid :)

> Well, the primary argument for avoiding version comparison semantics to
> begin with was exactly that we didn't want to mandate a particular
> version-numbering scheme.  However, if we're going to decide that we
> have to have version comparisons, I think we should just bite the bullet
> and specify one version numbering scheme.  More than one is going to add
> complexity, sow confusion, and not really buy anything.

I still believe we don't *need* any numbering scheme for extension
versions. Now, maybe we as a community want one. I'm voting against.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support