On May 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would changing the versions from 1.0 to 1.0.0 really break anything for
>> those folks?
>
> It would as soon as they needed to do an ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE ..
Ah-ite, screw it then.
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-ha
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> Having said that, I don't really care that much, except that it seems
>> a bit late in the release cycle to be changing this. People have
>> presumably already got installations that they hope to not have to
>> scratch and reload for 9.1
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On May 12, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Having said that, I don't really care that much, except that it seems
>> a bit late in the release cycle to be changing this. People have
>> presumably already got installations that they hope to not have to
>> scratch a
On May 12, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I had somewhat intentionally not numbered them in the same format as the
> main release numbers, because if we did that, people would expect them
> to match the main release numbers.
Well, I think the fact that they're all 1.x managed to do that well
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> Hackers,
> I don't suppose I could convince you to use dotted-decimal version numbers
> for the contrib extension versions, rather than numerics, could I? At this
> point, I think that would just mean changing them from 1.0 to 1.0.0.
> Why? Well, PGXN uses semantic
Hackers,
I don't suppose I could convince you to use dotted-decimal version numbers for
the contrib extension versions, rather than numerics, could I? At this point, I
think that would just mean changing them from 1.0 to 1.0.0.
Why? Well, PGXN uses semantic versions, which have this format, so
