Re: Extensions, patch v16 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: Extensions, patch v16
Date
Msg-id 20101211210908.GB7404@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions, patch v16  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Extensions, patch v16  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:24:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> >> Are there any actual remaining use-cases for that sed step?
> 
> > The goal here is to allow extension authors to maintain their version
> > number in the Makefile rather than in the Makefile and in the control
> > file separately. Having the same version number in more than one place
> > never eases maintenance.
> 
> Why is it in the makefile at all?  If the makefile does need to know it,
> why don't we have it scrape the number out of the control file?  Or even
> more to the point, since when do we need version numbers in extensions?

We *absolutely* need version numbers in extensions.  People will want
to have a certain version, or a certain minimum version, etc., etc.,
etc., just as they do for any other software.

Seriously, are you OK?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: auxiliary functions for record type