| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 19:04:06 |
| Message-ID: | 2232B3F4-7791-4FE3-A3FA-8A53A9F2F2DC@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 2, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
Precisely my thinking.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-02 19:04:14 | Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-02 18:58:32 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |