Re: Extensions, patch v16

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions, patch v16
Date: 2010-12-10 19:47:04
Message-ID: 28190.1292010424@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> This doesn't answer my question of why it couldn't be done the other
>> way. Why does the makefile need to know it? If it does need to know
>> it, couldn't it get it out of the control file instead of vice versa?

> Well the Makefile support is just a facility to fill in the control file
> automatically for you, on the grounds that you're probably already
> maintaining your version number in the Makefile.

Why would you choose to maintain it in the Makefile? In most cases
makefiles are the least likely thing to be changing during a minor
update. I would think that the right place for it is in the C code
(if we're trying to version .so files) or the .sql file, if we're trying
to version the SQL objects. In particular, if the only reason the
makefile needs to know it is to inject it into the control file, it
seems completely silly to not just maintain it in the control file
instead.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2010-12-10 20:00:09 Re: Extensions, patch v16
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-10 19:42:24 Re: Extensions, patch v16