On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:02 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/24 10:17, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> writes: >> On 12/12/24 21:02, Yurii Rashkovskii wrote: >>> 2. Any reasons to dictate MAJ.MIN format? With semantic versioning >>> abound, it's rather common to use MAJ.MIN.PATCH. > >> Okay, thanks; that's a good catch. I wonder how to follow these rules >> with a static fixed-sized structure. I would like to read about any >> suggestions and implementation examples. > > There's nothing stopping a field of the magic block from being > a "const char *" pointer to a string literal. Ok, See v.2 in attachment.
I've reviewed the patch, and it is great that you support more flexible versioning now. I am just wondering a bit about the case where `minfo->name` can be `NULL` but `minfo->version` isn't, or where both are `NULL` – should we skip any of these?
