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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Extensions, patch v16
Date
Msg-id 24239.1291998267@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions, patch v16  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Responses Re: Extensions, patch v16  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Re: Extensions, patch v16  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb failure with Postgres 8.4.4
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions, patch v16