Hi, On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:17:22AM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:05:52 -0500 > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > If you have no update script, why call it a new version? The point > > of extension versions is to distinguish different states of the > > extension's SQL objects. We do not consider mods in underlying C code > > to justify a new version. > > Although, as you say, the extension manager doesn't track changes in C code > functions, a new version could be released with changes in only in C > functions that implement a new feature or fix some bugs because it looks > a new version from user's view. Actually, there are several extensions > that provide empty update scripts in order to allow user to install such > new versions, for example; > > [...] > - hypopg > (https://github.com/HypoPG/hypopg/blob/REL1_STABLE/hypopg--1.3.1--1.3.2.sql) > [...]
Indeed, almost all users don't really understand the difference between the module / C code and the extension, and that gets worse when shared_preload_libraries gets in the way. I personally choose to ship "empty" extension versions so that people can upgrade it if they want to have e.g. the OS level version match the SQL level version. I know some extensions that chose a different approach: keep the first 2 digits for anything that involves extension changes and have a 3rd digit for C level bugfix only. But they get very frequent bug reports about version mismatch any time a C bugfix is released, so I will again personally keep shipping those useless versions. That being said, I agree with Tom here and we shouldn't add hacks for that.
