On Apr 25, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think it's a bit awkward that we have to do it this way, though. > The installed version of the extension at the SQL level won't match > what the user thinks they've installed. Granted, it'll be in the > ballpark (1.0 vs 1.0.3, for example) but that's not quite the same > thing. I also note that we've moved PDQ from thinking that versions > are opaque strings to having pretty specific ideas about how they are > going to have to be assigned and managed to avoid maintainer insanity. > That suggests to me that at a minimum we need some more documentation > here.
These are really great points. I knew I wasn't thrilled about this suggest, but wasn't sure why. Frankly, I think it will be really confusing to users who think they have FooBar 1.2.2 installed but see only 1.2 in the database. I don't think I would do that, personally. I'm much more inclined to have the same extension version everywhere I can. If the core wants to build some infrastructure around the meaning of versions, then it will make sense (especially if there's a way to see *both* versions). But if not, I frankly don't see the point. 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
