| 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 22:00:18 |
| Message-ID: | m2d3p91e6l.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> The alternative would be to match postgresql minor version numbering
> exactly, and then come up with some way to have a "no-op" upgrade in the
> frequent cases where the contrib module isn't changed during a minor
> release. This would also require some kind of "upgrade all" command for
> contrib.
That's as easy as having non-continuous version numbering. In your
example, we get from dblink version 9.1.0 to 9.1.4, but the 3 releases
before that it remains dblink 9.1.0.
Would it cut it?
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-12-10 22:02:06 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-12-10 21:55:08 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |