Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > My understanding of the consensus is that it wasn't felt necessary for > the purpose for which it was proposed. I think it could be > re-proposed with a different argument and very possibly accepted.
Sure. I'd still prefer us to adopt the solution I've been promoting, obviously, which I think has more merits. Namely no directory scanning, easy to support extension names such as postgis-1.5, and easy to support for a single upgrade file supporting upgrades from more than a single version, and bypassing entirely the need to know what version numbering scheme is in use: you just don't need to know how to compute previous or next version number. Now it's all about tradeoffs, and I'm just trying to explain what the one I'm doing here seems to me to have lot of sense. 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
