Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields
Дата
Msg-id
163151.1633634122@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
dfmgr additional ABI version fields Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Chapman Flack  writes:
> On 10/07/21 12:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Can we make the addition be a string not a number, so that we
>> could include something more useful than "1234" in the error
>> message?

> Just using a string like "EDB v" + something would probably rule out
> collisions in practice. To be more formal about it, something like
> the tag URI scheme [0] could be recommended.

Hmm.  Personally I'm more interested in the string being comprehensible to
end users than in whether there's any formal rule guaranteeing uniqueness.
I really doubt that we will have any practical problem with collisions,
so I'd rather go with something like "EnterpriseDB v1.2.3" than with
something like "tag:enterprisedb.com,2021:1.2.3".

Conceivably we could have two strings, or a printable string and
a chosen-at-random unique number (the latter not meant to be shown
to users).  Not sure it's worth the trouble though.

			regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Mark Dilger
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Role Self-Administration
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Role Self-Administration
FAQ