Thread: pgsql: Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more.
Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more. Since the current version is 1.1, the 1.0 file isn't really needed. We do need the 1.0--1.1 upgrade file, so people on 1.0 can upgrade. Per recent discussion on pgsql-hackers. Branch ------ master Details ------- http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/d4fb2f99ec86edc5c7ad11a9c7adc0d977cbb4d7 Modified Files -------------- contrib/hstore/Makefile | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org> writes:
> Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more.
> Since the current version is 1.1, the 1.0 file isn't really needed. We do
> need the 1.0--1.1 upgrade file, so people on 1.0 can upgrade.
Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether?
It's quite useless if it's not going to get installed.
regards, tom lane
On 23 February 2012 16:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org> writes: >> Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more. >> Since the current version is 1.1, the 1.0 file isn't really needed. We do >> need the 1.0--1.1 upgrade file, so people on 1.0 can upgrade. > > Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether? > It's quite useless if it's not going to get installed. It's worth noting that the recent commit "Make EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) track blocks dirtied, as well as those written" did not remove pg_stat_statements--1.0.sql either. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org> writes: >> Don't install hstore--1.0.sql any more. >> Since the current version is 1.1, the 1.0 file isn't really needed. We do >> need the 1.0--1.1 upgrade file, so people on 1.0 can upgrade. > > Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether? > It's quite useless if it's not going to get installed. I left it for the possible documentation value thereof. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether?
>> It's quite useless if it's not going to get installed.
> I left it for the possible documentation value thereof.
We do not keep around dead code in HEAD for historical reference
purposes. We have an SCM for that, and we should use it. The only
reason to keep this file would be if people were possibly still going to
install 1.0 in preference to 1.1 ... but this commit eliminated the
possibility of users doing so.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 05:26:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Shouldn't this commit have removed the 1.0 file from git altogether? > >> It's quite useless if it's not going to get installed. > > > I left it for the possible documentation value thereof. > > We do not keep around dead code in HEAD for historical reference > purposes. We have an SCM for that, and we should use it. The only > reason to keep this file would be if people were possibly still going to > install 1.0 in preference to 1.1 ... but this commit eliminated the > possibility of users doing so. Would someone please do the above --- I am unclear exactly what files need to be removed, and any Makefile adjustments. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 05:26:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We do not keep around dead code in HEAD for historical reference
>> purposes. We have an SCM for that, and we should use it. The only
>> reason to keep this file would be if people were possibly still going to
>> install 1.0 in preference to 1.1 ... but this commit eliminated the
>> possibility of users doing so.
> Would someone please do the above --- I am unclear exactly what files
> need to be removed, and any Makefile adjustments.
Done. There aren't any Makefile adjustments: the whole point of the
complaint was that the file was now useless because unreferenced.
regards, tom lane