| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |
| Date: | 2012-04-02 18:58:32 |
| Message-ID: | 10512.1333393112@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> 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.
> Sounds like a lot of work for core to maintain various version comparison schemes
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2012-04-02 19:04:06 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2012-04-02 18:32:26 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |