| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
| Date: | 2011-02-11 20:23:47 |
| Message-ID: | 19006.1297455827@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I should also make clear that I intend to start out all the contrib
>> modules at version 1.0.
> What happens if their contents change several times during a major
> release cycle?
I think it'd likely be sufficient to bump them only once per release
cycle, ie, there's no need to distinguish versions that never appeared
in the wild. But if we forgot and created 1.1 early in the 9.2 release
cycle and 1.2 late in the cycle, there's no great harm done either.
What I don't want to be doing is creating artificial version bumps with
empty upgrade scripts in every release cycle --- that's make-work for
us, and make-work for our users too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-02-11 20:25:56 | Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-11 20:19:56 | Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage |