Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>>> However, we're going to have to make a choice for the contrib modules,
>>> and I'll bet lunch that most people will follow whatever precedent we
>>> set with those.  I was thinking about using either "old" or "unpackaged".
>>> Thoughts?
>
>> Will we have to provide different upgrade scripts for different past
>> major versions of PostgreSQL?  If so, I would say "9.0" or "8.4" would
>> be better names.  hstore at least is an example that would need this
>> treatment I guess.
>
> I don't foresee us bothering with that.  We will only be trying to
> upgrade installations that got to 9.1 legitimately.
>
> I should also make clear that I intend to start out all the contrib
> modules at version 1.0.  *NOT* 9.1.  These things are going to get
> version number bumps only when the contents of their install scripts
> change, not whenever the surrounding database changes version.  If we
> number them at 9.1 to start with, it will just promote confusion.

What happens if their contents change several times during a major
release cycle?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company