Re: Extension Packaging - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Extension Packaging
Date
Msg-id 83DF99A3-C282-4AC3-9B31-EADD03018EE3@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extension Packaging  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
Responses Re: Extension Packaging
List pgsql-hackers
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:16 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

> So maybe it's half-assed. Maybe the version can be anything but the revision must be an integer. Maybe there's a
`pg_extension_version($extension_name)`function that returns ARRAY[$version, $revision], and the revision is set in the
controlfile but not included in the version or in the upgrade file names. I think I can live with that. But, hell,
you'rehalfway to mandating the meaning by doing this. Will we have to go the rest of the way in the future? 

Okay, how we add a "revision" key to the control file and extrevision to the pg_extension catalog. Its type can be
"TEXT"and is optional for use by extensions. 

This would allow extension authors to identify the base version of an extension but also the revision. And the core
doesn'thave to care how it works or if it's used, but it would allow users to know exactly what they have installed. 

Thoughts?

Best,

David





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Backpatching of "Teach the regular expression functions to do case-insensitive matching"