| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |
| Date: | 2010-12-10 20:00:09 |
| Message-ID: | 30BCCD03-00CA-401C-889A-11C4E87E14DF@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
+1
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-12-10 20:17:31 | ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; (was: Extensions, patch v16) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-10 19:47:04 | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |