On 2012-12-05 20:23:29 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05.12.2012 20:13, Andres Freund wrote:
> >But I really really would like them to go to a per-database directory
> >not a per-cluster one. Otherwise the coordination between different
> >database "owners" inside a cluster will get really hairy. I want to be
> >able to install different versions of an application into different
> >databases.
>
> Extension authors should be careful to maintain backwards-compatibility, so
> that it would be enough to have the latest version installed. If you break
> compatibility, you probably should rename the extension.
In theory yes. In practice:
> That said, I can understand that in practice you'd want to have different
> versions installed at the same time, so that you don't need to re-test
> everything when upgrading an extension, and don't need to trust that the
> extension author didn't accidentally break backwards-compatibility anyway.
;)
> If you really meant "different versions of an application", and not
> "different versions of an extension", then it seems to me that you're
> abusing the extension infrastructure for something else. If you have some
> functions that you consider part of the application, even if those functions
> might be useful in other applications too, you probably don't want to treat
> them as an extension.
I was thinking of reusable parts of applications that might be used in
more than one application.
*But* I think this also is a good basis to encapsulate individual
non-shared parts of an application. Why not?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services