Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12775.1297645194@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes: > On Feb 13, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> (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? I think after a couple of releases you'd be shipping something like foo--1.0.sqlfoo--1.1.sqlfoo--1.0--1.1.sqlfoo--2.0.sqlfoo--1.1--2.0.sql and it'll soon get to be a mess if your SCM doesn't clearly distinguish which is which. Also, as I mentioned before, once you've branched off foo--1.1.sql it's probably a mistake to be changing foo--1.0.sql anymore anyway. I suppose if you really wanted foo.sql to always be the head version, you could do something like "cp foo.sql foo--$VERSION.sql" as part of the build process in the Makefile. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: