(adding -hackers back into thread, got dropped by my email client, sorry)

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Mat Arye <m...@timescaledb.com> writes:
> > I tried looking in the contrib modules and didn't find many with lots of
> > planner hook usage.
> I'm not really sure why planner hooks would have anything to do with your
> exposed SQL API?

Sorry what I meant was i'd like to package different versions of my
extension -- both .sql and .c --
and have the extension act consistently for any version until I do a ALTER
So, I'd prefer a DB with an older extension to have the logic/code in the
hook not change even if I install a newer version's .so for use in another
(but don't update the extension to the newer version).  Does that make any

> You will need to have separate builds of your extension for each PG
> release branch you work with; we force that through PG_MODULE_MAGIC
> whether you like it or not.  But that doesn't translate to needing
> different names for the library .so files.  Generally people either
> mantain separate source code per-branch (just as the core code does)
> or put in a lot of #ifs testing CATALOG_VERSION_NO to see which
> generation of PG they're compiling against.

Yeah we plan to use different branches for different PG versions.

>                         regards, tom lane

Reply via email to