"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> I think we should keep the 1.0 version this time, in back branches.
>> Agreed. Maybe we shouldn't even make 1.1 the default in the back
>> branches.
> âDoes 9.0 get different treatment?â
Given the lack of previous complaints, I'm inclined to not touch 9.0
at all. We don't have any mechanism like multiple extension versions
to let users control what happens in 9.0, and this seems like rather a
large behavior change to set loose in such an old branch without that.
> If (I'm not sure this is the case - or must be...) a pg_dump/pg_restore
> sequence against a back-branch database installs the default version of the
> extension for that PostgreSQL version I would agree; and, to clarify, we
> would still provide the ability to upgrade to citext-1.1 in back-branches.
Right.
> Alvaro >> and it (1.0) wouldn't be provided in the master branch
> Why wouldn't it?
The current behavior is without question broken, so I don't see a good
argument for preserving it forever.
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
