Hi, Andrei!
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 7:02 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
>ly
> 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.
Generally, the patch looks good to me. I have couple of questions.
1) Is it intended to switch all in-core libraries to use PG_MODULE_MAGIC_EXT()?
2) Once we have module version information, it looks natural to
specify the required version for dependant objects, e.g. SQL-funcions
implemented in shared libraries. For instance,
CREATE FUNCTION ... AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME' LANGUAGE C module_version >= '1.0';
For this, and probably other purposes, it's desirable for version to
be something comparable at SQL level. Should we add some builtin
analogue of pg_text_semver?
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
