Re: proposal - get_extension_version function - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: proposal - get_extension_version function
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRCYHqTdBxmA3pRJ5Y-nUY6zzAk_T1iqS_G_iGqxP5T66A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal - get_extension_version function  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


st 8. 3. 2023 v 23:43 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com> writes:
> What I'm trying to pin down is the project's position on the reverse
> -- binary version X and SQL version X+1 -- because that seems
> generally unmaintainable, and I don't understand why an author would
> pay that tax if they could just avoid it by bailing out entirely. (If
> an author wants to allow that, great, but does everyone have to?)

Hard to say.  Our experience with the standard contrib modules is that
it really isn't much additional trouble; but perhaps more-complex modules
would have more interdependencies between functions.  In any case,
I fail to see the need for basing things on a catalog lookup rather
than embedding API version numbers in relevant C symbols.

How can you check it? There is not any callback now.

Regards

Pavel


 

                        regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use indexes on the subscriber when REPLICA IDENTITY is full on the publisher
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use indexes on the subscriber when REPLICA IDENTITY is full on the publisher