Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com> > wrote: >> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
> I agree. I don't. We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that decision needs to be reversed. David can choose to enforce something for stuff distributed through PGXN if he wishes, but that's no concern of the core server's. In particular I'm really skeptical of the theory that we need or should want version restrictions in Requires references. The equivalent feature in RPM is deprecated for Fedora/RedHat packaging use, and I see no reason why we'd need it more than they do. >> * So it might be worth looking at semver or something similar to integrate. > No. It's too late to be monkeying with this. I think for 9.1 we will > need to content ourselves with setting a good precedent, rather than > enforcing it programatically. It's not going to work to insist on all > numeric version strings anyway, because we've already got this 'FROM > unpackaged' bit floating around. Once 9.1 is out, it'll probably be too late to dictate any semantics for version numbers, because somebody will have done something incompatible with it before 9.2 is released. If we are going to try to insist on this, now is the time. But I don't agree with that position. 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