Re: [HACKERS] PG_MODULE_MAGIC checks and pg_migrator

2010-01-16 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Bruce Momjian writes: > Another option would be to distribute both 8.4 and 8.5 shared objects, > but that would require access to two source trees to perform the > compile, which seems very error-prone. That's what any extension author and/or packager is faced with. Using debian, it's easy enough

Re: [HACKERS] PG_MODULE_MAGIC checks and pg_migrator

2010-01-14 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > For example, right now pg_migrator can migrate to 8.4 and 8.5, but there > is no way to distribute a binary that will migrate to both because you > need different shared libraries with different PG_MODULE_MAGIC values. [ yawn... ] By the time 8.5 (9.0?) ships, this will p

Re: [HACKERS] PG_MODULE_MAGIC

2006-06-17 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Tom Lane wrote: No, each major release (8.2, 8.3, etc). There are hardly ever any major releases where you wouldn't need a new compilation anyway ... True. I'm all in favor of a magic used this way. It will save me some grief. Regards, Thomas Hallgren ---(end of b

Re: [HACKERS] PG_MODULE_MAGIC

2006-06-17 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A module magic patch was added recently and I'm a bit uncertain what the > implications are > for the external PL modules. Does it affect them at all? Yes. > Will I need to provide separate > binaries for each bug fix release even though the API's