Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Date: 2011-02-14 00:59:54
Message-ID: 12775.1297645194@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)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.sql
foo--1.1.sql
foo--1.0--1.1.sql
foo--2.0.sql
foo--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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2011-02-14 01:04:14 Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2011-02-14 00:49:31 Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling