On 2012-12-05 20:23:29 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05.12.2012 20:13, Andres Freund wrote: > >But I really really would like them to go to a per-database directory > >not a per-cluster one. Otherwise the coordination between different > >database "owners" inside a cluster will get really hairy. I want to be > >able to install different versions of an application into different > >databases. > > Extension authors should be careful to maintain backwards-compatibility, so > that it would be enough to have the latest version installed. If you break > compatibility, you probably should rename the extension.
In theory yes. In practice: > That said, I can understand that in practice you'd want to have different > versions installed at the same time, so that you don't need to re-test > everything when upgrading an extension, and don't need to trust that the > extension author didn't accidentally break backwards-compatibility anyway. ;) > If you really meant "different versions of an application", and not > "different versions of an extension", then it seems to me that you're > abusing the extension infrastructure for something else. If you have some > functions that you consider part of the application, even if those functions > might be useful in other applications too, you probably don't want to treat > them as an extension. I was thinking of reusable parts of applications that might be used in more than one application. *But* I think this also is a good basis to encapsulate individual non-shared parts of an application. Why not? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers