Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling

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>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date: 2011-02-14 01:04:14
Message-ID: E2EDEBCF-2971-4998-B95E-8D192E7D0BEE@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think after a couple of releases you'd be shipping something like
>
> foo--1.0.sql
> foo--1.1.sql
> foo--1.0--1.1.sql
> foo--2.0.sql
> foo--1.1--2.0.sql
>
> and it'll soon get to be a mess if your SCM doesn't clearly distinguish
> which is which.
>
> Also, as I mentioned before, once you've branched off foo--1.1.sql
> it's probably a mistake to be changing foo--1.0.sql anymore anyway.
>
> I suppose if you really wanted foo.sql to always be the head version,
> you could do something like "cp foo.sql foo--$VERSION.sql" as part of
> the build process in the Makefile.

That would be okay. Is $EXTVERSION still defined in the Makefile? ($VERSION is the PostgreSQL version, of course).

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-14 01:13:26 Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-14 00:59:54 Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling