>> I don't see how that affects my point? You can spell "1.0" as "0.1" >> and "1.1" as "0.2" if you like that kind of numbering, but I don't >> see that that has any real impact. At the end of the day an author is >> going to crank out a series of releases, and if he cares about people >> using those releases for production, he's going to have to provide at >> least a upgrade script to move an existing database from release N to >> release N+1. > > Yeah, but given a rapidly-developing extension, that could create a lot of > extra work. I don't know that there's much of a way around that, other than > concatenating files to build migration scripts from parts (perhaps via `Make` > as dim suggested). But it can get complicated pretty fast. My desire here is > to keep the barrier to creating PostgreSQL extensions as low as is reasonably > possible.
I assume this has already been discussed and rejected (or it wouldn't still be an issue), but what's wrong with the equivalent of \i in the successive .sql upgrade files? Or is the server running the scripts itself and no equivalent include feature exists in raw sql? Regards, David -- David Christensen End Point Corporation da...@endpoint.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
