On Dec 10, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe I misread David's meaning, but I thought he was saying that
> there's no value in inventing all those control file entries in the
> first place. Just hard-wire in ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE the convention
> that the name of an upgrade script to upgrade from prior version VVV is
> EXTNAME-upgrade.VVV.sql (or any variant spelling of that you care for).
> What is the point of letting/making extension authors invent their own
> naming schemes? That has no benefit that I can perceive, and the
> disadvantage that lack of uniformity will confuse users.
Yes, except that the version number in the file name should be the version it upgrades *to*, not *from*.
> As for the question of what characters should be expected in version
> numbers, +1 for digits and dots only. There's no good reason for
> something else. Even the Debian document you quote points out that
> hyphens in upstream version numbers give them problems, and Red Hat
> style packaging rules flat out disallow hyphens. (hyphen-something is
> for the packager to use, not the upstream software.)
I've mandated semantic versions for PGXN, mainly because it's simple and because it's close enough to the version
numbersused in core.
http://semver.org/
If we're going to be comparing version strings in file names, we'll need *something* to use to compare what's higher
thananother number.
Best,
David
