Re: Extension Templates S03E11

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extension Templates S03E11
Date: 2013-11-30 21:51:50
Message-ID: 1385848310.7500.307.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 18:34 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> I merged your patch in, rebased against master, fixed some more typos I
> found, and filled in the gaps you found in the docs. Version 17 of the
> patch is attached to that email, passes `make check`.

A couple more questions:

1. During the initial development of extensions, there was discussion
about ordered version numbers and dependencies on the version (e.g.
requires foo >= 2.1). Outside the scope of this patch, of course, but is
that something that we can still do later? Or are we building
infrastructure that will make that nearly impossible in a release or
two?

2. People will want to start using this feature to control and version
their schema. Do you have comments about that? Should we eventually try
to get extensions to support that use case (if they don't already), or
should that be a completely different feature?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-11-30 21:53:38 Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2013-11-30 21:39:04 Re: Extension Templates S03E11