Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Also, that macro block where Joe Conway compared catalog version numbers
and defined understandable macro names cried out for a solution.

  Bruce Momjian
  SRA OSS, Inc.

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(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