Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> OK, updated version of the patch attached and applied.
>
> > I still object to this. What is wrong with using the catalog version
> > number?
>
> It's partially redundant, but only partially, and I agree that it'll
> probably be easier for people to use than the catversion number.
>
> The case where it's not redundant would be if an add-on needs to deal
> with an internal API change made in a sub-release, e.g. 8.1.4, where
> the catversion number is not going to change. We've certainly done that
> before and will do so again, when there's no other way to fix a bug.
Also, that macro block where Joe Conway compared catalog version numbers
and defined understandable macro names cried out for a solution.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
