On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> (Actually, we could probably assume that the target version is >> implicitly "the current version", as identified from the control file, >> and omit that from the script file names. That would avoid ambiguity >> if version numbers can have more than one part.) > > I don't think we can safely design around one part version numbers here, > because I'm yet to see that happening in any extension I've had my hands > on, which means a few already, as you can imagine.
Why not? Simplest thing, to my mind, is to have upgrade/foo-1.12.sql upgrade/foo-1.13.sql upgrade/foo-1.15.sql Since you know the existing version number, you just run all that come after. For example, if the current version is 1.12, then you know to run foo-1.13.sql and foo-1.15.sql. > Now, what about having the control file host an 'upgrade' property where > to put the script name? We would have to support a way for this filename > to depend on the already installed version, I'm thinking that %v might > be the easiest here (read: I want to avoid depending on any version > scheme). > > version = '13' > script = 'foo.sql' > upgrade = 'foo_upgrade.%v.13.sql' I think that's way more complicated than necessary. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
