Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > "David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes: >> You keep making extension authors have to do more work. I keep trying >> to make it so they can do less. We want the barrier to be as low as >> possible, which means a lot of DRY. Make it *possible* to do more >> complicated things, but don't *require* it.
> So really, using %v to say "put the current version number here" does > not seem like a problem for me, it allows me not to have to think about > *any* files naming rules nor version numbering scheme. Maybe I misread David's meaning, but I thought he was saying that there's no value in inventing all those control file entries in the first place. Just hard-wire in ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE the convention that the name of an upgrade script to upgrade from prior version VVV is EXTNAME-upgrade.VVV.sql (or any variant spelling of that you care for). What is the point of letting/making extension authors invent their own naming schemes? That has no benefit that I can perceive, and the disadvantage that lack of uniformity will confuse users. As for the question of what characters should be expected in version numbers, +1 for digits and dots only. There's no good reason for something else. Even the Debian document you quote points out that hyphens in upstream version numbers give them problems, and Red Hat style packaging rules flat out disallow hyphens. (hyphen-something is for the packager to use, not the upstream software.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers