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 FB899F09-F305-492A-B495-71FDA99829FA@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 12, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I did think of another idea besides forbidding dash in extension names:
>>> what if we use double dash as the name/version separator,
>
>> +1 You might even consider mandating a double-dash between versions, so that they could have dashes:
>>        extension--oldversion--newversion.sql
>
> Hm.  I think we'd still have to disallow dash as the first or last
> character in a version name to make that unambiguous.  Not sure it's
> worth the trouble.

How likely is *that*?

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