Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> However, we're going to have to make a choice for the contrib modules,
>> and I'll bet lunch that most people will follow whatever precedent we
>> set with those. I was thinking about using either "old" or "unpackaged".
>> Thoughts?
> Will we have to provide different upgrade scripts for different past
> major versions of PostgreSQL? If so, I would say "9.0" or "8.4" would
> be better names. hstore at least is an example that would need this
> treatment I guess.
I don't foresee us bothering with that. We will only be trying to
upgrade installations that got to 9.1 legitimately.
I should also make clear that I intend to start out all the contrib
modules at version 1.0. *NOT* 9.1. These things are going to get
version number bumps only when the contents of their install scripts
change, not whenever the surrounding database changes version. If we
number them at 9.1 to start with, it will just promote confusion.
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
