Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date
Msg-id EB604FD0-A3B1-488D-8806-7B6D98831852@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

>> I sure would like it if the install script with no version in it corresponded to the latest version. Otherwise, one
mustrename the file every time one does a release. And as you're noting, you lose Git history that way. 
>
> (1) git does know it's a rename, it's just not default for git diff to
> show it that way.

I see, looks like one can `git diff --follow` to see it that way:
 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2314652/

> (2) I think that the normal use-case would not involve removing the old
> file, so this is moot anyhow.

Oh. So one normally will ship, for an extension "foo", only "foo.sql" and any necssary upgrade scripts?

Best,

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling