On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:31:08PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reeds...@rice.edu> writes:
> > Hmm, how about allowing a list of files to execute? That allows the
> Sure.  I still don't see why doing it in the control file is better than
> in the Makefile, even if it's already better than in the SQL script, at
> least in terms of code to write to support the idea.

Because that's two places to touch that have to worry about mapping
versions to actions. Inside the config file I'm already going to have to
do that, and in mostly a trivial one-to-one mapping. The proposed
make rules are an example of the kind of 'make my code match what the
system wants' that I complained of.

> Speaking about which, using Make rules to prepare your upgrade files
> from other pieces means no development at all on the backend side.  You
> can hardly beat that.

Yes, from the backend-developer's perspective. But not from the
extension-developer's perspective :-) And seriously, make is one of
those things that is supremely capable of doing lots of stuff, but is so
difficult to use correctly that everyone keeps reinventing newer wheels.
Seems this one isn't round enough.

In fact, doing it via make rules would still be available, if that's
what floats the particular developer's boat. more choices is good.

Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D.                                 reeds...@rice.edu
Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist        phone: 713-348-6166
Connexions                  http://cnx.org            fax: 713-348-3665
Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005
GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E  F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to