| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| Date: | 2010-12-10 22:22:26 |
| Message-ID: | C53259D0-08C1-4242-92CA-AC0D068FD32B@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'd say that for anything in /contrib, it gets a new version with each
> major version of postgresql, but not with each minor version. Thus,
> say, dblink when 9.1.0 is release would be dblink 9.1-1. If in 9.1.4 we
> fix a bug in dblink, then it becomes dblink 9.1-2.
Please don't add "-" to version numbers.
> This is confusing from a version number perpsective, but it prevents
> admins from having to run extension upgrades when nothing has changed.
>
> The alternative would be to match postgresql minor version numbering
> exactly, and then come up with some way to have a "no-op" upgrade in the
> frequent cases where the contrib module isn't changed during a minor
> release. This would also require some kind of "upgrade all" command for
> contrib.
+1
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-12-10 22:25:14 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION ... UPGRADE; |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2010-12-10 22:15:46 | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |