Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> On Apr 2, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Or an extension could specify itself which version numbering scheme it >>> uses. This just has to be a reference to a type, which in turn could be >>> semver, debversion, or even just numeric or text (well, maybe name). >>> Then you'd just need to use the comparison operators of that type to >>> figure things out.
That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid :) > Well, the primary argument for avoiding version comparison semantics to > begin with was exactly that we didn't want to mandate a particular > version-numbering scheme. However, if we're going to decide that we > have to have version comparisons, I think we should just bite the bullet > and specify one version numbering scheme. More than one is going to add > complexity, sow confusion, and not really buy anything. I still believe we don't *need* any numbering scheme for extension versions. Now, maybe we as a community want one. I'm voting against. 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