Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> OK, updated version of the patch attached and applied.

> I still object to this.  What is wrong with using the catalog version 
> number?

It's partially redundant, but only partially, and I agree that it'll
probably be easier for people to use than the catversion number.

The case where it's not redundant would be if an add-on needs to deal
with an internal API change made in a sub-release, e.g. 8.1.4, where
the catversion number is not going to change.  We've certainly done that
before and will do so again, when there's no other way to fix a bug.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to