"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes: > On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> 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 when is 1.12 a one part version number? :) > 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. I don't think imposing what version numbers must look like and what the separators in the file names should be is a good idea. >> version = '13' >> script = 'foo.sql' >> upgrade = 'foo_upgrade.%v.13.sql' > > I think that's way more complicated than necessary. It's just moving the complexity from the rules for the user to obey to having them explain us by which rules they're playing. I personally very much prefer the later, as you can imagine. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
