Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:35 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote:
>> Why not just use an upgrade script naming convention?
> Mainly, because of the situation where I have may versions that can
> all be upgraded from the same script. I'ld much rather distribution
> just 3 scripts (install + 2 upgrades), and a control file with
> something like this (pretend I'm on version 2.6)
> upgragde-1.0 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.1.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.1.2 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.2 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.3 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.4 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgragde-1.4.1 = $EXT-upgrade-1.sql
> upgrade-2.0 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.1 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.2 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.2.1 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.3 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.4 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
> upgrade-2.5 = $EXT-upgrade-2.sql
I see no advantage of this over a script per version combination, so
long as you allow scripts to \include each other.
regards, tom lane