Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date
Msg-id 12775.1297645194@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
Responses Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (2) I think that the normal use-case would not involve removing the old
>> file, so this is moot anyhow.

> Oh. So one normally will ship, for an extension "foo", only "foo.sql" and any necssary upgrade scripts?

I think after a couple of releases you'd be shipping something like
foo--1.0.sqlfoo--1.1.sqlfoo--1.0--1.1.sqlfoo--2.0.sqlfoo--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.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Next
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling