| From: | Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk(at)omnigres(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add Postgres module info |
| Date: | 2024-12-24 03:42:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAG=VW16Zr028+S7+sXVz+MUzyYyA5iKrokfZc8xY6oOpdYhUdA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:02 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/13/24 10:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On 12/12/24 21:02, Yurii Rashkovskii wrote:
> >>> 2. Any reasons to dictate MAJ.MIN format? With semantic versioning
> >>> abound, it's rather common to use MAJ.MIN.PATCH.
> >
> >> Okay, thanks; that's a good catch. I wonder how to follow these rules
> >> with a static fixed-sized structure. I would like to read about any
> >> suggestions and implementation examples.
> >
> > There's nothing stopping a field of the magic block from being
> > a "const char *" pointer to a string literal.
> Ok, See v.2 in attachment.
>
I've reviewed the patch, and it is great that you support more flexible
versioning now. I am just wondering a bit about the case where
`minfo->name` can be `NULL` but `minfo->version` isn't, or where both are
`NULL` – should we skip any of these?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2024-12-24 03:48:26 | Re: Add Postgres module info |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-12-24 01:57:27 | Re: Make tuple deformation faster |