| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
| Date: | 2011-02-11 20:40:08 |
| Message-ID: | m27hd65mqf.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I think it'd likely be sufficient to bump them only once per release
> cycle, ie, there's no need to distinguish versions that never appeared
> in the wild. But if we forgot and created 1.1 early in the 9.2 release
> cycle and 1.2 late in the cycle, there's no great harm done either.
> What I don't want to be doing is creating artificial version bumps with
> empty upgrade scripts in every release cycle --- that's make-work for
> us, and make-work for our users too.
I would favor different release cycles for extensions than for the core
product. It's a technical fact that a single extension source can and
do support more than one major core version. And as soon as the code is
maintained, next extension release would happen at next minor upgrade
release.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-02-11 20:40:52 | Re: Range Types: empty ranges |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-02-11 20:39:06 | Re: Range Types: empty ranges |