| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling |
| Date: | 2011-02-14 00:59:54 |
| Message-ID: | 12775.1297645194@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (2) I think that the normal use-case would not involve removing the old
>> file, so this is moot anyhow.
> Oh. So one normally will ship, for an extension "foo", only "foo.sql" and any necssary upgrade scripts?
I think after a couple of releases you'd be shipping something like
foo--1.0.sql
foo--1.1.sql
foo--1.0--1.1.sql
foo--2.0.sql
foo--1.1--2.0.sql
and it'll soon get to be a mess if your SCM doesn't clearly distinguish
which is which.
Also, as I mentioned before, once you've branched off foo--1.1.sql
it's probably a mistake to be changing foo--1.0.sql anymore anyway.
I suppose if you really wanted foo.sql to always be the head version,
you could do something like "cp foo.sql foo--$VERSION.sql" as part of
the build process in the Makefile.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-02-14 01:04:14 | Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-02-14 00:49:31 | Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling |