Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> OK, updated version of the patch attached and applied. > > > I still object to this. What is wrong with using the catalog version > > number? > > It's partially redundant, but only partially, and I agree that it'll > probably be easier for people to use than the catversion number. > > The case where it's not redundant would be if an add-on needs to deal > with an internal API change made in a sub-release, e.g. 8.1.4, where > the catversion number is not going to change. We've certainly done that > before and will do so again, when there's no other way to fix a bug.
Also, that macro block where Joe Conway compared catalog version numbers and defined understandable macro names cried out for a solution. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
