Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages - Mailing list pgsql-pkg-debian

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmO++VVtDrY1FTiSy2cNdJdMvi2OjkR5eMgZU7h2O_1kg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
List pgsql-pkg-debian
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
> Putting this 0.3-2 on top of master will only work if you also do the
> "1.0" change in debian/source/format, or else dpkg will complain about
> differences between the 0.3 tarball and the checkout. (That's why I
> suggested 0.4.)

I can go with 0.4-1, then.

> Does the extension sql file have any difference between the versions?
> What I'm often seeing is that extension authors will increment the
> extension version even for C-only changes.

Yes, because we need to revoke execution permissions at the SQL level.
We're no longer checking for superuser at the C code level, and so are
following what has since become "upstream", Postgres contrib.

> If it's really the same extension, just a newer codebase, why not have
> 1.0 in PG10, and use 1.1 here. Renaming the extension somewhat implies
> it would be co-installable with the original.

They could be co-installable, by changing symbol names. There is going
to be a contrib amcheck 1.1 before too long, so if I'm not going to
change the name of the extension, I should at least make sure that the
version numbers stay in a non-overlapping range, to make sure that
there is never confusion during upgrade.

I am tempted to increment versions ahead of extension version, for
C-only changes. That would allow me to create a 0.4-1 without changing
or adding any SQL files. What do you think of that idea? Any
particular reason why I should favor extension/package version 1.0,
that I might have missed?

> (On diffing the SQL files, I see that the difference is that "PARALLEL
> RESTRICTED" got dropped, is that intended? It is not reflected in any
> of the amcheck--*--*.sql files.)

I don't believe that that's critical, since we default to unsafe. The
Postgres contrib version is PARALLEL RESTRICTED on general principle,
not because it matters. Leaving this out means I don't have to deal
with special cases on Postgres versions that don't know about
parallelism.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-pkg-debian mailing list (pgsql-pkg-debian@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-pkg-debian

pgsql-pkg-debian by date:

Previous
From: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages