| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 13 trusted extensions and pg_available_extensions |
| Date: | 2020-09-26 14:11:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1990203.1601129470@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
> fields so all the required infrastructure was already there. I just
> added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
> patch.
The reason that pg_available_extensions has only the fields it has
is that these other values are potentially extension-version-dependent.
I do not think we can accept this patch.
(Strictly speaking, the "comment" might be version-specific too, but
there's less chance of printing a critically misleading value there.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Förster | 2020-09-26 14:24:01 | Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-26 14:07:32 | Re: pg_upgrade Python version issue on openSUSE |