Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;
Date: 2010-12-10 20:34:28
Message-ID: m2bp4t2wq3.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> I think that each contrib needs its own version numbers. The reason
> being that most minor updates don't touch contrib.

Fair enough. What are the version numbers of each current contribs?

> Also, once extensions and pgxn are operating full swing, I see contrib
> going away anyway ...

No, not all of them. Most of them are in the tree as show cases or for
core developers to easily check they just didn't break an important part
of the system from an external viewpoint, or to give examples on how to
upgrade external extension code between major releases.

The part that will drop in interest is the one where customers are not
trusting the extension mechanism and third-party software enough to
grant them landing into their production environments. Maybe. Given some
years and a good track record.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-12-10 20:42:38 Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-10 20:33:37 Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE;